publications 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IHniversit^ of Ipenne^lvania 
 
 SERIES IN 
 
 Philology and Literature 
 
 voij. is:. — isro- i 
 
 Palatal Diphtiiongization 
 OF Stem Vowels 
 
 IN THE OLD ENGLISH DIALECTS 
 
 CLARENCE G. CHILI) 
 
 Assistant Professor of English, University of Penns>-lvania 
 
 Puilished for the University 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 1903 
 
 GiNN & Co., Selling Agents, 2!) Beacon Street, Boston, Maas. 
 

Cornell University Library 
 PE 154.C53 
 
 Palatal diphthonglzat on of stem vowels 
 
 3 1924 027 323 900 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924027323900 
 

 publications 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IHniversit^ of Pennsylvania 
 
 SERIES IN 
 
 Philology and Literature 
 
 voij. I2C- — isro. 1 
 
 Palatal Diphthongization 
 OF Stem Vowels 
 
 IN THE OLD ENGLISH DIALECTS 
 
 BY 
 
 CLARENCE G. CHILD 
 
 Assistant Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania 
 
 Published for the University 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 1903 
 
 GlNN & Co., Selling Agents, 29 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 
 
Kai^wn 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Initial Palatal Diphthongization 9-17 
 
 Character of the diphthong produced after k, sk, §, 
 II. — Process of diphthongization, 12-14. — E less 
 readily diphthongized than tz, 14. — Special character 
 of y, 14.— The orthographic expression of i, 15-17- — 
 The development of sk to sc, 17. 
 
 II. Northumbrian 18-53 
 
 Texts used, 18. — Examples in the Durham Ritual, 18- 
 21. — The variant gifa, gifan, beside geja, giefan, 19, 
 20. — Exceptional forms of gdn, 20,21. — Geonga, 
 gtonga, 21. — Examples in the Lindisfarne Gloss, 21- 
 23. — Sceacere, 22. — General discussion, 23-53. — The 
 forms with c, g, 24-31. — Exceptional character of 
 geafel, and of (-)geadre and related forms, 24-27. — 
 Cooperation of u-o umlaut and palatal diphthongi- 
 zation, 27-29. — Exceptional character of ceaster 
 and its relation to modem Chester in Northumbrian 
 territory, 29, 30. — The diphthongization of ce Spo- 
 radic and late, 30, 31. — The spelling em, 31. — £not 
 diphthongized, 31. — The exceptional forms sci{e)p- 
 pend, sctp. — The combination sk, 31-45 — Self-pala- 
 talization of sk, and its double development to sk' 
 and sc, 32-37. — Character of the sound sc, 35, 36. — 
 Change of u to eo after sc, j, 36, 37. — ^Diphthongiza- 
 tion subsequent to i-umlaut possible after sk, 38. — 
 Absence of diphthongization due to development of 
 ■fc, 39. — Conditions in Rushworth^, 40. — Cases in 
 the Ritual and Lindisfarne considered, 40. — Shifted 
 stress in the diphthong possibly explainable on the 
 analogy of u-o umlaut, 44, 45. — Examples with e, i, 
 45. — Order and date of the changes assumed in 
 forms with k, sk, g, 46, 47. — Discussion of the forms 
 with /, 47-53. — Prefixing of g to words with vocalic 
 anlaut, 52. 
 
 (3) 
 
4 Contents. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 III. Mercian 54-^7 
 
 Texts used, S4- — The Vespasian Psalter, 55-58. — Ab- 
 sence of diphthongization after c, g, sc, and its 
 explanation, 55. — Forms with j, 56-58. — Use of g 
 before u. — Giamrung, gSmrung, 57. — Rushworth*, 
 58-61. — Evidence of diphthongization of palatal 
 vowels dubious, 58, 59. — Guttural vowels undiph- 
 thongized, 58, 59. — Forms with/, 59-61. — The spell- 
 ing i, and its use in words from the stem gearu-, 
 59-61. — The Glossaries, 61-67. — Absence of pala- 
 tal diphthongization, 61,62. — U-o umlaut in the 
 Glossaries, 62-66. — Forms with/, 67. 
 
 IV. Kentish 68-72 
 
 Texts used, 68. — Forms with c, g, sc, 68-70. — Evidence 
 dubious, 70, 71. — Forms with/, 71, 72. — Untrust- 
 worthy character of the Charters, 72. 
 
 V. West Saxon 73-120 
 
 Texts used, 73-75. — Forms with ce, &, after k, g, 73-75. 
 — The development of forms with sk, 75-106. — Sk 
 followed by primary cB, m, 75, 76. — Diphthongiza- 
 tion of secondary palatals after sk, 76-86. — The 
 grade of original a before consonant combinations 
 anterior to t-umlaut, 77-84. — The change of & 
 (WG. &) to &, jS-S-i.—Giest, 83. — Sceaft, 84. — Diph- 
 thongization of guttural vowels by sZ, 86-90. — Date 
 of the diphthongization of secondary palatal vowels, 
 91, 92. — Connexion between the diphthongization 
 of secondary palatal vowels and of guttural vowels, 
 92. — Undiphthongized forms assumed to be charac- 
 teristic of the Saxon patois, 93-106. — Gcef, 95, 96. — 
 Forms with S, 96. — Forms with sc, 97-106. — The 
 forms of sculan, 101-106. — Diphthongization of 
 original e, 106-112. — Undiphthongized forms, 106- 
 III. — Relation in point of time of the diphthongi- 
 zation of e to that of primary ce, 108-111. — The 
 evidence proving the period of general diphthongi- 
 zation anterior to i-umlaut, 112-118. — Order of 
 changes assumed, 117, 118. — Forms with original j, 
 118-120. — Date of diphthongization after/, 120. 
 
 VI. Conclusion iai-135 
 
Contents. 5 
 
 WORKS USED. 
 
 [The leading references to the general literature of the subject may 
 be found in Sievers's G^rammar, 3ded., p. 272, and Bidhiing's Elenten- 
 iarhuch, J 491]. 
 
 Birch, De Gray, Cartularium Saxonicum, London, 1885-1887. 
 Bremer, O., "Relative Sprachchronologie," Indogermanische Fors- 
 
 chungen, 4 (1894), 8-31. 
 Brenner, O., "Zur Aussprache des Angelsachsischen," Paid and 
 
 Brune's Beitrage, 20 (1895), 554-559. 
 Brown, E. M., Die Sprache der Rushworth Glossen ztim Evangelium 
 
 Matthaus und der mersische Dialect, Gottingen, I (189 1), II (1892). 
 Bulbring, K. D., Review of "Morsbach's MittelengUsche Grammatik," 
 
 AngUa Beiblatt, 7 (1896), 65-74. 
 , Review of Victor's "Die northumbrischen Runensteine," 
 
 Anglia Beiblatt, 9 (1898), 64-78. 
 , Review of " Laut und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dia- 
 
 lekte, I (vocahsmus)," ed. by Dieter, ib. 85-111. 
 
 "Zur altenglischen Diphthongierung diu-ch Palatale,'' Anglia 
 
 Beiblatt, 11 (1900), 80-119. 
 
 , Altenglisches Elementarbuch, I (Lautlehre), Heidelberg, 1902. 
 
 Chadwick, H. M., "Studies in Old English," Transactions of the Cam- 
 bridge Philological Society, 4 (1899), 2-226. 
 Cockayne, T. O., Lechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early 
 
 England, London, 1864-1866. 
 Corpus Glossary, in Sweet, Oldest English Texts, q. v. 
 Cook, A. S., A Glossary of the Old Northumbrian Gospels, Halle, 1894. 
 CosijN, P. J., Altwestsachische Grammatik, Haag, 1888. 
 Dieter, F., Ueber Sprache und Mundart der altesten englischen 
 
 Denkmaler, der Epinaler und Cambridger Glossen mit Berucksich- 
 
 tigung des Erfurter Glossars, Gottingen, 1885. 
 Durham Ritual, see Stevenson. 
 
 Epinal Glossary, in Sweet, Oldest English Texts, q. v. 
 Erfurt Glossary, in Sweet, Oldest English Texts, q. v. 
 Fiftieth Psalm, in Kluge, Altwestsachsisches Lesebuch, q. v. 
 FiJCHSEL, H., "Die Sprache der northumbrischen Interlinearversion 
 
 zumjohannesevangelium," Anglia, 24 (1902), 1-99. 
 Glosses, Kentish, see Zupitza. 
 Grein-Wulker, Aelfric's Pentateuch, Bibliothek des angelsachsische 
 
 Prosa, vol. i, 1872-1899. 
 Hymn, Kentish, in Kluge, Angelsachsisches Lesebuch, q. v. 
 Kentish Glosses, see Zupitza. 
 Kentish Hymn, see Hymn. 
 Kluge, F., Review of Sievers's " Angelsachsische Grammatik," 
 
 Anglia Anzeige, 5 (1882), 81-86. 
 
6 Contents. 
 
 Klugb, F., Angelsaclisisches Lesebuch, Halle, 1897. 
 
 Lea, Miss E. M. (Mrs. Wright), "The language of the Northum- 
 brian gloss to the Gospel of St. Mark," Anglia, 16 (1893), 62-134, 
 135-206. 
 
 Leyden Riddle, in Sweet, Oldest English Texts, q. v. 
 
 LiNDELOF, U., Die Sprache des Rituals von Dttrham, Helsingfors, 1890. 
 
 LiNDisPARNE Gloss, in Skeat, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 
 etc.,q. V. 
 
 Miller, T., The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History 
 of the English People, E. E. T. S., London, 1890, 1893. 
 
 Morris, R., The Blickling Homilies, E. E. T. S., London, 1874-1880. 
 
 MoRSBACH, L., Review of Emerson's "History of the English Lan- 
 guage," Anglia Beiblatt, 7 (1897), 321-338. 
 
 Murray, J. A. H., ed.. New English (or Oxford) Dictionary, 1888 — . 
 
 Paul, H., Zur Geschichte der germanischen Vocalismus, Paul and 
 Braune's Beitrage, 6 (1879), 1-256. 
 
 Plummer, C.Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, Oxford, 1892, 
 1899. 
 
 PoGATSCHER, A., " Ueber die Chronologie des altenglischen i-um- 
 lauts," Paul and Braune's Beitrage, 18 (1894), 465-474. 
 
 Psalm 50, in Kluge, Altwestsachsisches Lesebuch, q. v. 
 
 Rehm, v., Palatalisierung der Gruppe 'sc', Heidelberg, 1901. 
 
 Ritual, Durham, see Stevenson. 
 
 RusHWORTH Gloss, in Skeat, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 
 etc., q. V. 
 
 Sievers, H., "Miscellen zur angelsachsischen Grammatik," Paul and 
 Braune's Beitrage, 9 (1884), 197-300. 
 
 , Angelsachsische Grammatik, 3ded., Halle, 1898. 
 
 Skeat, W. W., The Gospel according to St. Matthew, etc., in Anglo- 
 Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Cambridge, 1871-1878. 
 
 Stevenson, J., Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, Surtees Society, 
 London, 1840; also the collation by Skeat, Transactions of the 
 Philological Society, 1877-1879, London, 1879, App. I. pp. 49 ff. 
 
 Sweet, H., King Aelfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral 
 Care, E. E. T. S., London, 187 1. 
 
 , King Aelfred's Orosius, E. E. T. S., 1883. 
 
 , Report of paper on the "History of g in English" in the 
 
 Transactions of the Philological Society, Feb. 2, 1883. 
 -, Oldest English Texts, E. E. T. S., London, 1885. 
 
 Taylor, I., Words and Places, London, 1873. 
 Thorpe, B., Aelfric's Homiliae Catholicae, London, 1844-1846. 
 Vespasian Psalter, in Sweet, Oldest English Texts, q. v. 
 WiLMANS, W., Deutsche Grammatik, Strassburg, 1897. 
 WoLFP, R., Untersuchung der Laute in den kentischen Urkunden, 
 Heidelberg, 1893. 
 
Contents. 7 
 
 Wright-Wulker, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, Lon- 
 don, 1884. 
 
 Zeuner, R., Die Sprache des Kentischen Psalters (Vespasian A. I.), 
 Halle, 1881. 
 
 ZupiTZA, J., "Zu den Kentischen Glossen Zs. 21. i ff.", Zeitschrift 
 fur deutsches Alterthum, 22 (1878), 223-226. 
 
 , Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar, Beriin, 1880. 
 
 , "Kentische Glossen des neunten Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift 
 
 fur deutsches Alterthum, 21 (1887), 1-59. 
 
 SYMBOIvS. 
 
 The letters representing the series of guttural and palatal sounds 
 in the texts are represented by the letters c, sc, g. 
 
 The surd gfuttural stop is denoted as a sound by the symbol k. 
 When necessary, its affection to spirantal quality in the course of 
 palatalization is specially indicated by use of the symbol x- The 
 palatal sound developed from it is expressed by the symbol %. 
 
 The combination sk denotes 5 + surd guttural stop; sx, i + surd 
 guttural spirant; s%, s + palatal aspirant. The unitary palatal sound 
 (approximately modem English sh in shoe; see p. 29) which developed 
 from sx is denoted by the symbol sZ. 
 
 The sonant gutttu-al spirant is represented by g, the palatal sound 
 developed from it by f . 
 
 The palatal semi- vowel is represented by /. 
 
 When necessary, the stressed element in a diphthong is indicated by 
 printing the symbol in Roman : e. g. , geaf, gekra. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following notes upon palatal diphtliongization of 
 stem-vowels in Anglo-Saxon were originally included in a 
 thesis offered to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Johns 
 Hopkins University in 1895, in partial fulfillment of the 
 requirements for the doctorate. They remain unchanged 
 except in detail, and except for the inclusion of results 
 contained in articles published since that date, especially 
 the notable series by Biilbring in the Anglia Beiblatt, 
 together with his general exposition in his Elementarbuch. 
 
 The original plan comprehended a detailed study of 
 palatal diphthongization in the several dialects, with a 
 careful effort to avoid the prejudice, no less real because 
 often unconscious, occasioned by too great deference to 
 conditions in West Saxon, as if it possessed a right to be 
 regarded as representing, in some sense, a norm for the 
 whole speech. The importance of maintaining the parity 
 of the several dialects in studies of this character, even 
 while the special importance of West Saxon is conceded, 
 need not be emphasized. Attention has repeatedly been 
 called to it, for example by Sievers, and it has recently 
 found recognition in a most marked way in Biilbring' s 
 Elementarbuch. The original plan, as essentially correct, 
 however faulty the manner of its execution, remains 
 accordingly unchanged. The testimony of the several 
 dialects has been studied in typical texts, and necessarily 
 in those of which grammars exist, in order that information 
 might be obtained in regard to general conditions without 
 the necessity of searching for special examples. 
 
 (9) 
 
lo Preface. 
 
 Effort has not been directed toward finding new exam- 
 ples, so much as toward substantiating a general expla- 
 nation. The available material has already been pretty 
 thoroughly canvassed. It should also be pointed out that 
 the subject is definitely limited to palatal diphthongization 
 of stem-vowels, and does not include the whole subject 
 of palatalization of initial consonants. 
 
 The conditions under which palatal diphthongization 
 took place are still far from being clearly understood, and 
 various associated questions still await an answer. No one 
 can have a more poignant sense of the perplexities these 
 involve than one who has attempted their explanation and 
 solution. To refrain from adventuring novel explanations, 
 however, when dealing with diflBcult questions, whether 
 because evidence is meagre, or because current opinion is 
 contravened, or, in brief, through timidity in regard to 
 probable adverse criticism for any reason, can hardly fail 
 to result in deferring their successful solution. If the 
 present attempt to deal with a most difiicult (and most 
 interesting) chapter of Anglo-Saxon phonology has the 
 good fortune to occasion further ventilation of the subject, 
 though itself riddled for the purpose, it will not prove labor 
 lost. 
 
 I desire to express my sincere thanks to Dr. James W. 
 Bright, of the Johns Hopkins University, whose approval 
 of my choice of subject has been followed by frequent and 
 helpful advice. I acknowledge with pleasure my indebt- 
 edness to the authors of the various works I have used, 
 and especially to Professor Biilbring. I feel myself under 
 much obligation to the University of Pennsylvania, by 
 whose permission this paper is admitted into the Univer- 
 sity Series. 
 
 C. G. Child. 
 
 University of Pennsylvania. 
 
INITIAI. PAI^ATAL DIPHTHONGIZATION. 
 
 The question by what process palatal diphthongization 
 (as in ^c<Bf > ceaf^ *gtzfon > giafon, *gefan > giefan^ 
 scomu > sceomu, *jung > geong, etc.) was effected is 
 closely bound up with the question whether the resulting 
 diphthong was a falling or a rising diphthong (ea or <?a, 
 etc.). Cases in which a diphthong is produced by insertion 
 of a glide before a guttural may be set aside ; the diph- 
 thong in this case must necessarily have been a rising 
 diphthong. The point of chief importance is in regard to 
 diphthongs from palatal vowels. These, clearly, in the 
 historic period, were falling diphthongs. For a convenient 
 summary of the evidence, with further contributions, see 
 Biilbring, Anglia Beiblatt^ ii, 97.' 
 
 Was this indubitable falling diphthong original, or did 
 it result from a shift of accent in an original rising diph- 
 thong? The latter is the general view. Biilbring, for 
 example, speaks in the article just quoted of evidence ' ' fiir 
 accentverschiebung bei den aus palatalen vokalen hervor- 
 gegangenen diphthongen " (p. 103), and in formulas of 
 transition, proposed for argument, supposes (pp. 97 f.) *c^si- 
 to pass to *ceSsi parallel with *JSr to j'e^r, both with 
 rising diphthongs. 
 
 ' In brief: (i) Similarity of behavior of all ea's, ta's, ie's and ie's after 
 palatal consonants, as regards monophthongization, no matter how they 
 originated (Sievers, Beiirage, 9, 204); (2) especially, further, the uni- 
 formity of development of tVs and ie's of different origin to short and 
 long i, J// (3) texts which have «« have i (j/) but never */ (4) «V appears 
 as a scribal error or peculiarity for i, not for e ; (5) accents in the 
 Aelfredian manuscripts appear on the first element ; (6) in late West 
 Saxon, ie and te become short and long i, y, not e, S ; (7) giofol and 
 ongiotan (in Aelfred) by u-o umlaut from ie or i attest a falling diph- 
 thong before the period of u-o umlaut. 
 
 (II) 
 
12 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 This view or assumption seems incorrect. The problem 
 involved is in what way an original guttural k, sk, g {si 
 and j will be considered later) so aflfected a following 
 palatal ^, ^, or e^ as to produce ^a, ^a, and ie respectively. 
 The development is due, apparently, to two causes — a differ- 
 ence of quality between the consonant and the vowel in 
 the first place, and sensitiveness to palatal affection on the 
 part of the consonant in the second place. Two steps in 
 the development may accordingly be conjectured : first, 
 insistence upon the palatal quality of the vowel in distinc- 
 tion from the preceding guttural consonant caused it to 
 assume diphthongal form with level stress ; second, the 
 consonant became palatal and effected a closer union in 
 articulation with the first element, ' heightening ' it to a 
 closer approximation with its own point of articulation 
 and causing it to become more strongly stressed, with the 
 result that a falling diphthong is produced. The develop- 
 ment may be represented, for example, as *^/k/"> ^kcBcef^ 
 ^kcBCBf > *k&eB/ > *ke.a/ (written ceaf) ; *ged > *geed > 
 *£eed > *gied (written ^e^^). 
 
 This seems the most probable development. To suppose 
 *kcB/ > *keztz/ with guttural k and a glide (S of palatal 
 quality equivalent to that of the stem-vowel is impossible. 
 If we suppose *ka;/ > *kce/ > hcB^f^ we have to suppose a 
 glide of ' lower ' palatal quality than the stem-vowel, later to 
 become one of ' higher ' palatal quality, with the further 
 and very real difficulty that the diphthong is a rising diph- 
 thong. If again we suppose *%(Bf > ^ha^f > *kcs^f > 
 *%?&(zf > *kecB/ > *%^af (written ceaf), we have again a 
 rising diphthong to be converted into a falling diphthong, 
 and similar introduction of a guttural glide cannot in any 
 case be posited in the case of the change of e to ie. 
 
 Two difficulties are apparent in these explanations. One 
 is that of conjecturing the period at which the consonant 
 becomes palatal, considered with respect to its ability to 
 
Initial Palatal Diphthongization. 13 
 
 produce diphthongization. If, for example, it is argued 
 that *kcs/ > *kaf > *leae/^ the e would be a glide of 
 higher palatal grade than the vowel that palatalized the con- 
 sonant which introduced it. The consonant, also, must 
 have assumed a degree of palatal quality higher than that 
 of the vowel that palatalized it. Such a view has, or 
 has had, its supporters. Brenner {Beitrage^ 20, 555) in 
 criticizing Bremer {Indogermanische Forschungen, 4, 25) 
 remarks, " Wenn j palatal ist, dann braucht es doch noch 
 nicht dem palatalen ce sympathisch zu sein. Im wests, 
 ist namlich, als a palatal geworden war, das vorausgehende 
 J auch palatal geworden, aber noch iiber die <F-stelle vor- 
 geriickt ; war nun die bewegung zwischen j und <b horbar 
 geworden, so ist es erklarlich, wenn der gehorte ubergangs- 
 laut als e oder i in der schrift zum ausdruck kam. Der 
 neue laut — ich will ihn kurz vorlaut nennen — ist ein- 
 getreten, nicht well cb palatal war, sondern well es fiir 3 zu 
 wenig palatal war. Ebenso steht es mit dem i in jiefan." 
 This, it must be confessed, seems an ad hoc explanation. 
 The mechanics of the change involves gradual assimila- 
 tion of consonant to vowel such as may produce stability, 
 not an affection of such character as to produce new con- 
 ditions of instability of a reverse kind. 
 
 The second difficulty in these tentative explanations is 
 that they lead necessarily to the assumption of an original 
 rising diphthong with no apparent reason forthcoming for 
 subsequent change of stress. The incidental difficulty 
 presented by the character of the vowels assumed to be 
 glides, or to have developed from glides, is also apparent. 
 This view in regard to the diphthong is not only erroneous, 
 but has been productive of further error. Sweet {Trans. 
 Phil. Soc. Feb. 2, 1883) once argued, for example, that the 
 initial ^ is a stop, because we can understand *gaad becom- 
 ing *gjaad., but not *jaad becoming *jjaad — except on 
 paper. The error is in part involved in regarding j as 
 
14 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 properly representing the value of the palatal spirant g, 
 and is in part due to the belief then prevalent, that the 
 diphthong caused by palatalization, even in all historic 
 forms, must be regarded as a rising one. 
 
 The explanation first offered avoids these difiiculties. 
 The consonant remains guttural until after a > <^, is grad- 
 ually palatalized, and causes approximation of the first 
 element of the level-stressed diphthong ereB to e, dissimila- 
 tion subsequently changing the second element to a. The 
 combination ee similarly becomes ie. The result in each 
 case is a falling diphthong. 
 
 Confirmation of this explanation is afforded by re- 
 corded conditions in the case of e. In Northumbrian e is 
 undiphthongized at a time when the diphthongization of ee 
 is under way, and even in West Saxon there is some 
 evidence of its having been diphthongized later than the es. 
 According to the prevailing view, there would be no more 
 difficulty in the development of a diphthong out of e than 
 out of cz ; indeed, it might be supposed that the stronger 
 palatal e would palatalize the g- more quickly and so lead 
 to earlier introduction of the ' glide.' But this is not the 
 testimony of the record. On the other hand, according to 
 the explanation suggested, the more nearly homorganic e 
 necessarily retained its integrity longer — the form *geelpan, 
 for example, persisting for an extended period before the 
 first element of the intermediate stage ee was adapted in 
 height from e to i. Adaptation in the case of the tz took 
 place sooner as being more necessary, the inequality in 
 height between the point of articulation of the consonant 
 and that of the cb being greater than between that of the 
 consonant and that of the e, and the ' moment ' of change 
 accordingly greater. 
 
 In the case of /, conditions wholly different appear, 
 although y is usually regarded as if the same reasoning 
 applied to it as to k^ g, and as if the examples in which it 
 
Initial Palatal Diphthongization. 15 
 
 appears could be quoted beside those with k,£: The diflFer- 
 ence is absolute, in that the / was from the first a palatal, 
 and not a palatal developed from a guttural. The nature 
 and process of the changes it produced were consequently 
 wholly different from those produced by >l, £. As a result 
 of the palatalization of k, g^ a following <z, e assumed the 
 form ea^ ie ; but this, be it noted, was incidental to the pro- 
 cess explained above, not a further development after the 
 k^ g, had been fully palatalized. In the case of/, when fol- 
 lowed by a palatal, there was no similar hostile dissimilarity, 
 and therefore affection of the vowel was only a remote pos- 
 sibility ; exception need not be made, perhaps, even of the 
 es (the question turning on the development of West Saxon 
 gSar beside Anglian gSr). Before gutturals, however, the 
 j introduced a mediatory glide, the resulting diphthongs 
 being necessarily rising diphthongs, later only in rare cases 
 becoming falling diphthongs. The affection due to / 
 must, therefore, be kept strictly apart from that due to 
 k, i- The latter exhibits marked dialectal variations ; the 
 former is common Anglo-Saxon and consistent in its 
 development in the several dialects. The fact that in cer- 
 tain dialects diphthongization of palatal vowels does not 
 occur, or is rare, is no criterion in regard to / before gut- 
 tural vowels. The absence of diphthongization of palatal 
 vowels is due to the fact that the sounds represented by 
 f, g were not sufficiently palatal to effect it — ^but the / is 
 by nature palatal, and diphthongization of guttural vowels 
 necessarily took place. Therefore Biilbring is not justi- 
 fied, when expressing his belief that the e after g is some- 
 times a mere diacritic, sometimes a true diphthongal 
 element {Elementarbuck, § 297), in the statement, " Diph- 
 thongierung ... ist . . . am uuwahrscheinlichsten in 
 Texten, welche die palatalen Vokale ganzlich oder teilweise 
 undiphthongiert erhalten," 
 
 The j is usually expressed by g, followed in cases with 
 
i6 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 a guttural stem-vowel by e, i. The detail in regard to the 
 occurrence of this e^ i, is best treated in connection with 
 the examples in the various texts. The view of Biilbring 
 that the e or i is sometimes a diacritic does not seem 
 necessary ; it can always be shown to be a true diphthongal 
 element. The mistaken supposition that diphthongiza- 
 tion after / is not to be credited, if k and / in a text 
 do not effect diphthongization, leads directly to such 
 a view, as well as the conception, generally entertained, 
 that initial / in native words, in place of the usual /, 
 merely means/. This conception needs special attention. 
 It seems incorrect for the following reasons : 
 
 1. The impelling and ^-spelling are discriminated 
 initially. Where ge and gi are not used, i is used. But 
 if gCy gi represent a diphthongal element, iu and to must 
 also represent a diphthongal element. 
 
 2. The t^pelling is confined to cases with a following 
 guttural. Why, if the i merely represents original /, is it 
 not used with palatals ? 
 
 3. The i is almost exclusively used before u — practically 
 always, except in Rushworth^^ where use of the i is a man- 
 nerism of the scribe. This can only be because i is the 
 appropriate glide before u. 
 
 4. The spelling iong^ ioc^ must be held to attest a diph- 
 thong to, id and to represent a middle stage between the 
 original iu^ iH and the frequently recorded eo with the g- 
 symbol. See further under the discussion of the Anglian 
 forms of geong. 
 
 5. The form iwocc {Ritual^ 109, 16) for geoc indicates 
 a partition of a true diphthong with insertion of a ze/ in 
 the hiatus. 
 
 6. Rushwortk^ has numerous cases of gearw- (< garw-) 
 spelled iarw-. If i represents simply a palatal spirant, why 
 should it appear in a position where by assumption origi- 
 nal guttural a is retained ? See the fuller discussion later. 
 
Initial Palatal Diphthongization. 17 
 
 For these reasons, the t initial must be regarded as 
 equivalent to £'i, that is, it represents the palatal spirant 
 together with a diphthongal glide or possibly, in some 
 cases, stressed diphthongal element. 
 
 In addition to these sounds, a special vallue of sc is to be 
 noted. The sk, as such, stands on the same plane as k, g. 
 It develops, however, also to a higher grade of palataliza- 
 tion, si, not simply as a result of position before a palatal 
 vowel, but because of the phonetic nature of the combi- 
 nation. The details in regard to this development are 
 reserved, for convenience, till they can be taken up in con- 
 nection with the examples. 
 
II. 
 
 NORTHUMBRIAN. 
 
 The texts considered are the Durham Ritual (Lindelof : 
 Die Sprache des Rituals von Durham, Helsingfors, 1890), 
 and the Lindisfarne Gloss (Lea: "The language of the 
 Northumbrian gloss to the gospel of St. Mark," Anglia, 
 1893, 16 : 62-134, 135-206, with a brief survey of Fiichsel, 
 "Die Sprache der northumbrischen Interlinearversion zum 
 Johannesevangelium," Anglia, 1902, 24: 1-99; Cook's 
 Glossary has also been used for reference.) 
 
 The examples, cited by section from the monographs, 
 are listed with incidental comment and with detailed 
 treatment following. 
 
 I. The Durham Ritual. 
 
 A remains in a few cases, for special reasons, unchanged : 
 in ongann before the nasal (§1, 2); in cald, calf, galga, 
 before / + cons. (§§ i, 21 ; 9, I, 2) ; and in the loan-words 
 calic (§1,5) and stancarr (§ 9, 1, i, a). These cases are with- 
 out significance for the present inquiry. A preceded by sc 
 is treated below. A changing to cb in closed syllables (§ 3) 
 or by umlaut (§12, i, 3) remains undiphthongized in the 
 following cases : begtstt; asccBCcenum, (beside ascecsccen^ 
 noted §13, 2, a); asctzpen; gcstifyo {portas), gcettana; 
 giscceft {2t^ cases beside gescecsft, noted §13, 2, a), scczft; 
 giscaep\ giscaepp'' es ; ongcBgn (4 cases)/ sceBp{p)end, scgp- 
 pend (beside scep{p)end (2), scieppend (i), scippend (i): 
 see §§12, I, a, b; 13, 2, a). 
 
 E from a by umlaut (§ 12, I, a) appears in sceppa^ 
 scep{p)end (beside sccepend, etc., as above). 
 
 The secondary palatal e from a before n by ^-umlaut 
 
 (18) 
 
Northumbrian. 19 
 
 (§12,1, a) remains without diphthongization : cempum; 
 ancend; gende {Jrenans)} 
 
 Similarly the e by umlaut from ea by breaking before r 
 (§12, I, c, j9): gicerra, ymbcerra; gigervdp^ gigeride; 
 gigerela^ gigerila. 
 
 In -geard (§ 9, 1, i, <5), the diphthong is due to breaking. 
 
 The cases of ea from cz referable, or apparently referable, 
 to palatal aflFection (§13, 2, a) are as follows : ceaster {6 
 cases) ; -geadr (7 cases with gedprung) ; sceall (beside scal^ 
 noted § 9, I, 2, d) ; ascececcen. Bryd scean {thoro\ an anoma- 
 lous form, probably a corruption of, or, as lyindelof says, a 
 scribal error for, sceomul {sceatnol), should be classed with 
 the cases of sc before guttural vowels. These cases are 
 treated in detail below. 
 
 In the case of ^ (§ 13, 2, c\ there is no diphthongization. 
 Certain forms of ge/a — gtfe, gifende, forgif- — beside 
 numerous cases with e of this and other words, call for 
 comment. Parallelism with West Saxon i from ie cannot 
 of course be assumed, as Dieter (1 27) properly notes in 
 connection with gibaen in the Epinal Gloss. In speaking 
 of the occurrence of forms with i beside forms with e in 
 Anglo-Saxon and in Middle English, Biilbring {Anglia 
 Beiblatt, 11,101, note i) cites Brate's explanation of the / 
 as due to levelling from the 2d and 3d persons {Beitrdge^ 
 10, 23), Luick's reference of it to the influence of niman 
 ( Untersuchung zur englische Lautgeschichte, pp. 302 f.) and 
 Bjorkman's suggestion that it is due (in the Anglian) to 
 influence of East Scandinavian giva with i from the 2d 
 and 3d persons {Scandinavian Loan-Words in Middle 
 English, T^^. 1542".), concluding with a reference to Holt- 
 hausen's explanation of the Low German z-form through 
 palatalization of older e {Die Soester Mundart, 1886, p. 
 
 ' A wholly obscure form, probably due to scribal error — Dr. C. P. G. 
 Scott suggests to me that it is a remnant of bridligende, a simple and 
 felicitous explanation. 
 
20 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 69) and an expression of doubt whether the parallel form, 
 suggested by Holthausen, Dutch gisteren, Low German 
 gistern, can with propriety be adduced, as this may be 
 regarded as a case of umlaut of e before st. Biilbring 
 concludes, "Aber trotz alle dem ist noch ratselhaft, warum 
 das i gerade im stamme j^3-, ^ib- an so vielen orten das e 
 verdrangte." The problem is certainly one of special 
 interest. The occurrence of forms with both e and i in 
 both the North and South precludes assumption of special 
 dialectal influence, and the prevalence of the two forms 
 immediately beside one another (with e and with i\ 
 together with the fact (noted by Biilbring) that in the 
 Ritual, the glosses of Ms. Harl. jj'^6 (Wright-Wiilker, 
 Vocabularies, i, 192-247), the Blickling Homilies, and in 
 ^Ifric, the noun also appears with i {gifn, gife, forgifnis, 
 -nes), afibrds presumptive evidence against a transfer of 
 the i from West Germanic informs. Presumably levelling 
 from the 2d and 3d person is the chief explanation (Biil- 
 bring accepts it in his Elementarbuch, § 306, note 3), 
 though it is difiicult to see why there is not at least some 
 evidence of a similar levelling in geta. Because of the 
 noun-forms, this explanation is not completely satisfactory. 
 These, however, may also have been affected by gift, if, 
 as is possible, its range of senses and use was wider than 
 the record shows, an assumption for which its wide-spread 
 use in Middle English would seem to afford some evidence. 
 
 Comment upon the other short vowels (e. g. the e from 
 <?) is unnecessary. No cases of diphthongization or height- 
 ening due to an initial palatal appear. The examples of 
 sc before guttural vowels, are given below under a sepa- 
 rate heading. 
 
 Diphthongization does not occur with ceixova. d by umlaut 
 (§ x6): gSstlic ; gSt (capres); g^p (and other forms of 
 gdn with ^). The form gecep referred to by I^indelof 
 among the examples with short ^'(§ 13, 2, a), is not due 
 
Northumbrian. 2i 
 
 to palatal influence. The ece possibly represents estz, 
 namely ee, paralleling the aa in bigaap^ bigaas^ etc. 
 (§ 55> 4)' Gigtep is presumably, as Lindelof says, a 
 scribal error. Both forms, geizp, gigiep^ strongly suggest 
 hiatus, as if the word had been made to conform with the 
 preterit gieade. 
 
 E (Goth. ^, W. G. a) is not diphthongized in ongiton, 
 ongUton (§ 17, i). For West Saxon sciap^ the Ritual has 
 sctp (§ 13, 2, b). 
 
 Incidental reference may be made to the form geonga^ 
 gionga, etc. (see § 13, 3), not due as Lindelof says to diph- 
 thongization of the guttural vowel, but either to influence 
 of the preterit, or to ecthlipsis and contraction in gigongan 
 (see Biilbring, Elementarbuch, 492, note i). 
 
 The examples of diphthongization of guttural vowels 
 after sc are as follows (§13, 2, 3) : 
 
 ea from a : sceape. 
 
 ed from d : gisceddas^ gisceddest; scedn, giscedn, 
 
 ^0 from o: sceoma; sceondlic; and the anomalous bryd 
 scean' (thoro\ presumably, as lyindelof suggests, for 
 sceomul. 
 
 ed from 6 : scedh ; giscet ; giscebp (7). 
 
 The examples of diphthongization after original / (in 
 the spellings « and^e) are as follows (§§ 13, i; 17, i ; 29). 
 
 i : iocce {jugo), beside iwocc, and in proper nouns. 
 
 gi: giungo; gigop ; gigophad; gieondfier (inlusira); gie 
 (pron.) ; gie (adv.). 
 
 g : j appears before ^ without a glide in g&r and deriva- 
 tives. 
 
 2. lyiNDiSFARNE Mark. 
 
 y4 ( §§ 1,5 ; II, i) remains in calic ; camel ; carcern ; carre. 
 
 The (B from a in closed syllables (§ 3, i, 2) is undiph- 
 thongized in ages/ (beside -geqf, geezf) ; ongcBt, -gcBtt^ 
 (4 cases beside one of ongeat); g<zt ; ongezgn, ongaegn, 
 
23 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 togcBgnes (beside -geaegn^ 4 cases) ; scceftes (beside sceafle, 
 sceceftes). Also ea^ e due to e -umlaut (§ 23): sceppap ; cempo ; 
 cennise; acenda {natd). Also cb^ e ea by umlaut of the break- 
 ing (§ 25) : gecerde^ ccerrende^ geccsrred ; gegerelo; ge- 
 gerelad; gerd. 
 
 The cases of ea from a referable, or apparently refer- 
 able, to palatal affection are as follows (§ 29.1) : geafel; 
 iBtgeadre {/[) ; gegeadrad ; -geaf, -gecef; ongeat ; ongeaegn 
 (4); ceastra{xo)\ scea/te, scees/tes ; sceal. The foimpeod- 
 sctp, cited as a case of umlaut (with a reference to Sievers, 
 §98, note), is not in point, the z, as Sievers states, being 
 West Germanic. 
 
 The e remains unchanged {geldas, /brge/b, etc.), except 
 in gyld (subst.), discussed below. 
 
 The only example with ^ from d by umlaut (§ 42,1) is 
 toscicBnde. Geande in from geande {==from gdnde) may be 
 compared v^'x^gecBp of the Ritual. The ^, (Goth. ^, WG. a) 
 is unchanged (§30,1) in ongHon (4) ; sdp appears, as 
 in the Ritual. Sceacerum is an anomalous form in that 
 the Anglian form should theoretically be ^scScere, or by a 
 remote possibility *sctcere, like scip. Biilbring {Anglia 
 Beiblatty 9)77) iiote 2) assumes a short vowel. Fiichsel 
 (§ 22, III) refers to the relation of sceacere and sdp as 
 peculiar. Retention of cb is hardly possible ; the vowel is 
 to be assumed as short It may have been conformed to 
 words of its class with a short ^, like bcecere., tczppere. 
 
 The forms with sc before gutturals are as follows (§§ 29; 
 
 31 ; 137. 5) : 
 
 ea from a: sceacas ; sceal ; scealt; scealde^ scealdon; 
 morsceape. 
 
 ed from d : tosceddade. 
 
 eo from o : sceomfulnise ; sceortum ; sceofmum ( = sceo- 
 mum). 
 
 ed from 6 : gescedp ; in scdes., scde^ gescded, the vowel re- 
 mains unchanged. 
 
Northumbrian. 23 
 
 The forms with original j (§§ 38 ; 83) are as follows : 
 
 z: only in proper nouns. 
 
 £-i:£-ie (pron.) (96) beside ^^ (6), '^^' (3), '^eS' ; (lY/^-ue' 
 (jam), {1) beside ^^ee^ {l) ; gigope ; ging ; bigienda (see 
 below). 
 
 ge : geone (5). 
 
 g •' g^^ (7)) ''g^^ (i) > ^'^'^ see under ^«. 
 
 3. lyiNDisPARNE John. 
 
 Palatal diphthongization of ce is sporadic (§21, II): 
 ongeczgn beside ongcsgn ; tog(Bgnes^- as ; ongeat ; geadre 
 beside -gaepre ; gegeadredon ; ceastra beside ccBstre 
 (Fiichsel notes that ea occurs 75 times in the four gospels, 
 az twice) ; sceaft ; sceacere (see above, under 2). E is not 
 diphthongized. 
 
 Sc is followed by a glide before a (§ 21, III) in morsceape ; 
 sceapana (beside sccsppand) ; before o in scealde ; gesce- 
 ortade. Before d (WG. «z) in ascedden ; scedp. Before 
 d no diphthong appears in scdeSy (beside '■sceoea\ ^sceowum', 
 ^scoeum\ etc. in Luke ; ^scoea\ geoceoe' in Matthew). 
 
 The cases with / are as follows (§ 21, I) : 
 
 gi : gie (pron.) beside gi^ ^gii\ '■gee\ and ^g^e* {Mat- 
 thew)^ '■gice' {Luke) ; and^z (adv.) beside '■gee' '•gie' '•gei'' and 
 '^^', '■giee' {Matthew) ; giungra\)&€\As. gingesta {Luke). 
 
 g ; gires ; girc (= gire\ and see forms under gi. 
 
 4. Discussion. 
 
 This survey of the Northumbrian forms points two 
 facts — the use of a diphthong marking an advanced stage 
 of palatalization is comparatively rare, and yet in certain 
 cases the diphthong is used. The question is of im- 
 mediate importance whether this apparent fluctuation 
 merely indicates negligence on the part of the scribe, or 
 represents actual variation in usage. The latter is the 
 case. Study of the forms makes clear that the scribe repro- 
 
24 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 duced the spoken speech, with such variation as occurred 
 historically. Exceptions to the normal usage of the text 
 are such as would naturally appear — the exceptions that 
 prove the rule. In particular, in the case of certain words, 
 diphthongization is practically invariable, while in other 
 words there is marked variation. Since the reason for 
 this can apparently be pointed out, it seems possible to 
 assume with confidence that the scribe was not careful in 
 the one case and careless in the other. 
 
 The forms with c and g will be taken up first, those with 
 sc, as in some respects an exceptional combination, later. 
 
 The conditions are as follows : with cz from a in closed 
 syllables we have, in the Ritual, ceaster (6 cass£)i-geadr- 
 (7 cases), as over against begcBtt, gcetto, gcettana, ongagn 
 (4 cases); in Mark, geafel, (Btgeadre, gegeadrad,-geaf or 
 ge<zf (2 cases beside gacBf\ ongeat (beside ongeet^-gcBt, 
 -g^tt, 4 cases),-^^^^M (4 cases beside- ^<^^«, 4 cases) 
 ceastra; in John, gecegn (-) beside 3 cases with es; 
 ongeat;-geadr-, 2 cases beside i with <b ; ceastra beside 
 ccBstre, the total for Lindisfarne being 75 cases of ea to 2 
 
 Some of these cases of diphthongization are exceptional 
 — significantly so — as compared with West Saxon, and 
 must be separately considered. The form geafel is in- 
 structive in this connexion. It occurs twice in Lindis- 
 farne beside some ten cases of gcefel (once gcefit). How 
 is the diphthong to be explained ? In speaking of u-o umlaut 
 Mrs. Wright says (§ 16), " The form geafel XII. 14 = W. 
 S. gafol, is probably not an exception to this rule [that a 
 is not affected] , but an example of the influence of a pre- 
 ceding palatal." This is probably correct, but the word 
 has primarily no right to a stem-vowel ^, without which 
 diphthongization is impossible. The associated forms in 
 the text do of course attest the occurrence of the word 
 with ^, but the cs is itself exceptional and late, and the 
 
Northumbrian. 35 
 
 word is in marked contrast, as regards its diphthongiza- 
 tion, to West Saxon gafol. 
 
 The forms (^geadre, geadrung^geadriga^ also are excep- 
 tional. Words from this stem appear invariably with 
 ea in the Ritual, although this text (accidentally, presuma- 
 bly) exhibits no trace of the sporadic diphthongization after 
 ^ occurring in Lindisfarne. These words are also inva- 
 riably diphthongized, in numerous cases, in Lindisfarne. 
 Such uniformity demands an explanation, as well as the 
 fact that words from this stem are not diphthongized in 
 West Saxon.* 
 
 Biilbring, in a review of Vietor's Die Northumbrischen 
 Runensteine in Anglia Beiblatt, 9, 76, notes in regard to 
 these forms, " aetgadre, iiber dessen g V. zweifelt, hatte 
 sicher den velaren reibelant ; und es ist durchaus unnotig 
 anzunehmen, dass ' das g sich dem a angepasst ' hatte ; 
 vielmehr ist der wg. laut erhalten. Dagegen bezweifle ich 
 seine annahme von palatalisierung in dem cstgeadre der 
 Lind. Gosp. [und des Rituale]. Nach palatalem g hat 
 namlich das Ri. nur cz (begcett., ongcBgn vier mal ; geeto 
 ' t\iox&\ gceito^gcsttana., formen, die vom sg. gtBt neu gebil- 
 det sind); aber stets heisst es, mit ea, cBtgeadre, (Btdgea^ 
 dre, gigeadriga, geadrung, geaprung (zusammen sieben 
 mal). . . Im Iyind.-ms. begegnet gcefel (6 mal), nedgce- 
 /el{i), ong(zgn (7), togcegnes {\i\gcBt (4) ag(Bf {i),for- 
 gesfip), begcet (3), ongestt, ongcet (17), wozu sich agef (i), 
 togeegnas (i), ongcsn (i), onge<Et (i), forgea;f{x), ongeaen 
 (i), ongeaegn (5), togeaegnes (2) gesellen ; ea kommt in 
 diesen wortem nur verhaltnismassig selten vor (geafel 2, 
 geat 2, forgeaf 5, ongeat 3). Dagegen erscheint ea wie- 
 der ausnahmslos in geadriga (6 mal), gegeadriga (7), 
 geadrung (i) und zehnmal in (stgczdre, woneben nur drei- 
 
 ^ To the significant feature of the uniformity of the diphthongization 
 in these words, I called attention in my original draft (1895). Biilbring 
 has also done so in the article quoted below. 
 
26 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 mail ez und einmal etz auftritt {cedgcsdre, aedgeeedre). 
 Dabei ist wichtig, dass in Me. gaderen, gederen, togadere, 
 togedere, togidere nur den verschlusslaut g aufweisen, 
 wahrend fiir den ae. palatalen reibelaut g in alien me. 
 dialekten j steht {jaf^ jat usw.), sofern nicht aus dem An. 
 der verschlusslaut g {gaf usw.) eingedrungen ist ; vgl. 
 Beiblatt VII, 63 [65] f. und Museum IV. 220 f. Daher ist 
 ftir das ea in geadriga, aetgeadre usw. eine andere erkla- 
 rung notig als in geafel, /orgeaf usw.; und zwar wird *ist- 
 jesdyri = cstgesdere vor der zeit des u\o — umlauts *jarf- 
 urqjan = gadrian in jesdurojan umgewandelt haben, 
 woraus durch «-umlaut geadriga entstand, dass dann 
 hinwieder das adverb zu CBtgeadre machte. Auch sonst 
 kommt im Ae. gelegentlich u / o umlaut eines ee vor, z. b. 
 in ^efreatwian (im Rituale und in Aelfric's predigten) aus 
 *jifrcBt-uwojan; vielleicht auch im nordh. gifeasta (Ri. 
 und Li.) 'fasten' neben pfeesiay 
 
 Exception must be taken to the exceedingly pretty ex- 
 planation, which Biilbring offers. There is no inherent 
 difficulty in supposing that the adverb affected the verb ; 
 Bradley had the year before assumed this as a probability 
 (N. E. D., s. V. gather). There is also, however, no inhe- 
 rent necessity — in West Saxon, for example, the variant 
 gczdrian might readily result beside gaderian, if only 
 orthographically, by conformity with other verbs with 
 closed syllables. As regards the present case, must the 
 influence of the adverb be assumed ? The train of changes 
 necessitated is difficult to credit. Biilbring postulates in 
 *(stg(Bdyri first an affection of the u by z-umlaut, then an 
 affection of the ato cs hy the y thus produced, then a 
 transfer of the cb thus produced by association to the verb 
 *gadurojany then the working of u-o umlaut on this trans- 
 ferred (E. This certainly demands the assumption of an 
 extended development between the time of z-umlaut and 
 
Northumbrian. 27 
 
 u-o umlaut, not to speak of the primary difficulty of sup- 
 posing that the adverb was able to constrain the verb to 
 such absolute uniformity as the examples display. More- 
 over, there is nothing in this development which could 
 not have taken place in Mercian ; one should confidently 
 expect to find the same development taking place there. 
 But it does not : witness gegadrian of the Psalms. This 
 leads to the question whether the true cause of the devel- 
 opment has been determined. Is it necessary in the first 
 place to postulate an ^, before the working of u-o umlaut 
 can be admitted ? A certainly is not ordinarily affected in 
 Northumbrian by u-o umlaut, but in one at least of Biil- 
 bring's examples, gefreatwian from *gefr(Btuwqjan (to 
 quote his form), it is not clear how he is justified necessarily 
 in assuming cs. The question of cz as over against a, and 
 of such influence as the adverb may have exercised, may, 
 however, be left in abeyance. The main point is, whether 
 we may not discriminate here the workings of u-o umlaut 
 in a special group of cases. 
 
 Whatever view may be held of the nature of u-o umlaut, 
 its effect is to replace the original vowel by a diphthong 
 consisting of a palatal and a guttural element. For an 
 example of a, Mercian steapol may be instanced. Whether 
 such a diphthong will develop from the inceptive stages 
 of the affection into a form requiring orthographic expres- 
 sion depends, of course, upon the sounds in combination 
 with it. The nature of the initial consonant is generally 
 recognized as an important factor ; initial ze/, for example, 
 or the fact that the vowel stands in anlaut, is an effective 
 coadjutor to the development. Can this be assumed of 
 the g in the group under discussion ? G^ is not, of course, 
 if standing before «, primarily palatal, but it is, by its 
 phonetic nature, susceptible and responsive to palatal affec- 
 tion, and therefore may be assumed to stand in a permis- 
 
28 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 sive and auxiliary relation toward, and thus cooperate with 
 and help to efiFectuate, diphthongization.* 
 
 This supposition of cooperation of the g accounts for the 
 absence of u-o umlaut in this group in Mercian, where no 
 palatal diphthongization takes place. The question why 
 forms with the symbol j are not discoverable in Middle 
 English is rendered no more difficult, whether this expla- 
 nation be assumed or Biilbring's. The existence of variant 
 forms without diphthongization, the influence of Mercian, 
 the use of non-vernacular literary forms, the influence of 
 the adverb, — all these may have estopped the tendency to 
 the use of palatal g and hence occurrence of j in Middle 
 English. 
 
 Whether to this same influence the diphthongized forms 
 of gcBfel are to be referred is open to question. The word 
 does not show the same uniformity in the use of the diph- 
 thong, and therefore seems to belong properly among the 
 cases with sporadic diphthongization. Possibly, the lack 
 of uniformity is due to the existence of a variant *gtzjl- 
 beside regular *ga/ol. The diphthongized forms would 
 then be due either to the original *ga/ol, i. e. they would 
 fall into the group under discussion (a form with ^remaining 
 beside them from ^gt^fi), or it would have to be supposed 
 that the non-normal form *^<^/? supplanted *ga/ol, and that 
 the variation was due to the ordinary sporadic diphthongi- 
 zation, a view like Chadwick's (see p. 62), except in not as- 
 suming *gcsfl- to be the regular form. This latter suppo- 
 sition , is not acceptable, partly because it necessitates 
 assuming that a non-regular form drove out a regular form, 
 and partly because it does not explain another word, ceaf' 
 ertun, beside ccefertun^ in Lindisfarne. Syncope is not 
 possible in this word — ^ccefrtun is incredible. It might 
 
 ' Palatal diphthongization of e would not, of course, be assisted in 
 this way, as the palatal diphthongization of e produces tV, while the u-o 
 umlaut is eo. 
 
Northumbrian. 29 
 
 be conjectured that as the ordinary diphthongization is 
 late, it is possible that the second vowel in these words 
 had assumed palatal quality and changed the first vowel 
 to ^, and that hence sporadic diphthongization was possi- 
 ble. But this is inherently unlikely — the e of the second 
 syllable must represent merely the obscure vowel. The 
 most probable explanation is that the ^ represents a partial 
 or ineffectual working of the umlaut, with the diphthong 
 only partially developed, so that these words are at one 
 time written with the full ea, at another with the incep- 
 tive form <s. In that case, both geafel and ceafertun belong 
 in the group with geadriga, etc., and geafel is in dialectal 
 accordance with the geabul of the Glossaries^ and the unaf- 
 fected gafol of West Saxon. 
 
 This influence may also be conjectured in gcBt^ gate. In 
 the singular, it would be susceptible only of sporadic diph- 
 thongization Vik&gcef. In the plural, ^a^w, the influence 
 of u-o umlaut should have been felt. Lindisfarne has 
 geat (nom. An%^^geatt^ (nom. pi.) beside four cases of ^<^/, 
 gcBtt (nom., dat. and ace. sing.). 
 
 To this group may also be referred geatum (= geatwum) 
 of the Leyden Riddle. Whether to this group should also 
 be referred the forms Cead-, Ccead-, Ccsedualla (beside 
 Cced-., Coed-, Cedualla) in Bede, adverted to by Biilbring 
 (ib. p. 77), that is, whether they are to be regarded as 
 due to a combination of palatal influence and ze^-umlaut, 
 depends upon the question whether the forms with the 
 diphthong are genuine Northumbrian forms. There may 
 be variation here between Northumbrian and West Saxon 
 forms. Two cases with sc are taken up below. 
 
 Ceaster is an exceptional form of different character. It 
 is an exception, not in having a diphthong, but in the 
 uniformity with which the diphthong is displayed — six 
 cases in Ritual^ all diphthongized, and seventy-five in 
 Lindisfarne with the diphthong, to two with ce. The con- 
 
30 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 trast this word displays to the sporadic diphthongization 
 in other words is most striking. No other word in the 
 Ritual has c^ but the forms with ^, except the geadr- 
 group, show no diphthongization whatever, yet all the 
 cases of this word are diphthongized. The reason for such 
 uniformity, it is difficult to suggest. Special interest at- 
 taches to the word and the fact of its uniform diphthong- 
 ization for the reason that the conditions recorded in these 
 two texts absolutely accord with the conditions appearing 
 to-day in place-names having this word as an element in 
 what was Northumbrian territory. It has sometimes been 
 noted as a curious and puzzling fact that after passing 
 away from the -chesters of the South, through the -casters 
 and -casters of the Midland, one comes again to a group of 
 -chesters in the North, — Lanchester^ Binchester^ Chester- 
 le-Street, Ebchester, Ribchester^ Rowchester^ Rutchester, etc. 
 (cf. Taylor, Words and Places, 1873, p. 174). The prob- 
 able explanation — which seems far-fetched at first — is that 
 place-names were most commonly formed with a genitive 
 for the first element (e. g. Rouesceaster) and this was com- 
 monly an j-genitive. The consequence is we have not c 
 simply, but the combination sc, which, developing like the 
 sc elsewhere (see below), attained higher palatal quality 
 than the c by itself, and therefore uniformly diphthongized 
 the vowel. The influence of the word in place-names then 
 inevitably influenced the word in its independent use. 
 
 Apart from the cases just considered, there are none with 
 diphthongization after ^, g in the Ritual, and few in Lin- 
 disfarne. 
 
 Biilbring's list (ib. p. 76) for Lindisfarne may be cited. 
 Beside forms already considered, there are the following : 
 -g<zgn (-) (20), -geaegn (5), -ge^gnas (i), -geaegnes (2), -gcen 
 (i), -geaen (1); gizt, noun, (4), geat (2); -g^/{6), -gej (i), 
 -gecef (i), -geaf{s) ; -gaet, pret. (20), -geczt (i), -geat (3). 
 
 The forms with ea are plainly true cases of palatal diph- 
 
Northumbrian. 31 
 
 thongization. The affection is sporadic. In this connec- 
 tion, a word may be added regarding the spelling eez. 
 Biilbring {Elementarbuch.^ § 296) seems to find in this 
 spelling evidence of a rising diphthong, and apparently con- 
 siders words with this spelling as later diphthongizations 
 than those with ea. This is hardly probable as they occur 
 beside each other in the same word in the same text. 
 They seem rather to evidence lateness of diphthongization, 
 and to represent variation of form in a diphthong as yet 
 not fully established. Further, they accord with the ex- 
 planation of the process of diphthongization given above 
 (p. 6), as representing the change of cece to ees., the later 
 stage of which is ^a, and are to be regarded accordingly as 
 falling, not rising, diphthongs. 
 
 E^ as stated, does not display diphthongization (e. g. in 
 numerous forms of gefa.^ geta.^ and in sceld). The diphthong 
 ie is, in fact, rare. It appears by diphthongization of the sec- 
 ondary palatal e in scieppend^ sdppend, in the Ritual, gyld 
 (subst.) in Mark, and scip in both texts. Another apparent 
 example of ie is bigienda. Scieppejtd is, of course, not 
 due to umlaut of an original ea, which would have been 
 e, but to insertion of a glide before the e of an original 
 ^sceppend. While it seems at first necessary to regard 
 sdp as due to some external agency, owing to its isola- 
 tion as an example of the diphthongization of original e, 
 i, it is at least supported by the similarly isolated sciep- 
 pend, sdppend and must be explained as a monoph thongi- 
 zation of *sctep from *scip. Bigienda is due to a special 
 development. Gyld is a perverted form, written for, or 
 by confusion with, gylt. These forms (except gyld) are 
 further treated below. 
 
 To pass now to the exceptional combination sc. The 
 forms in which sc stands before palatal vowels are of special 
 interest. They are as follows, those without diphthongi- 
 zation being inclosed in parentheses : (Ritual) ascecsccen 
 
32 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 (asceeccenum) ; {asccspen) ; -scecsft (i case, beside -sccz/t., 37 
 cases) ; {giscaep-^ 2) ; sceap ' (imp. 2d pers.) ; scieppend, scip- 
 pend i^tsiAs. sceppend^ sc^pend^ sceppend, sctzpend) ; sceall 
 {heside seal); (sceppa); {sceld) ; sdp ; {Lindisfarne Mark) 
 sceafte-, sceceftes ; sceal; tosc^cBnde ; sceacerum ; (sceppap); 
 sdp; (^Johri) sceaft ; sceacere ; sdp ; elsewhere jc^a^^aj (i), 
 (scael (^i)), (sccBfi)\ scecBcende., occur. 
 
 The cases in which sc stands before guttural vowels, it 
 is not necessary to list again ; see pp. 21, 22, 23. 
 
 The combination sk differs from ^, ^, in that it diph- 
 thongizes guttural vowels, and in that the cases with cb 
 present contradictions not explainable as due merely to the 
 sporadic nature of the diphthongization, as in the case of 
 
 The combination must plainly have developed palatal 
 quality independently of the following vowel, else the diph- 
 thongization of gutturals would have to be explained as 
 due to transference from forms with palatal vowels, and if 
 so the diphthongization of palatal vowels would be more 
 uniform than that of guttural vowels, which is not the 
 case. 
 
 The combination did, in fact, contain conditions for self- 
 palatalization.' 
 
 An explanation of the development, practically satisfac- 
 tory, is contained in Wilmann's Deutsche Grammaiik, § 57, 
 with reference to the somewhat similar sound in High Ger- 
 man : " Die Entwickelung von sc zu sc ging, wie aus dem 
 zusammengesetzten Zeichen sch zu schliessen ist, in der 
 Weise vor sich, dass zunachst die Tenuis c zum Spiranten ch 
 wurde. Statt der Verschlusses, der von Anfang an ver- 
 haltnismassig schwach war, wurde bald nur eine Reibungs- 
 enge gebildet, allmahlich immer fluchtiger und unvoll- 
 
 ' The statement which follows, with regard to the double development 
 of sk was contained in my original draft (1895). I include now Biil- 
 bring's statements in regard to this sound. 
 
Northumbrian. 33 
 
 kommner, bis der Laut schliesslich ganz erlosch. Jedoch ist 
 das nicht so zu verstehen, als ware der neue Laut einfach 
 dadurch entstanden, dass das^ hinter dem s verschwun- 
 den sei ; denn sonst miisste das alte j in der Verbindung 
 sc eben den I^aut unseres nhd. scA gehabt haben, was 
 durchaus unwahrscbeinlich ist. Vielmehr ist anzunehmen, 
 dass das c erst schwand, nachdem es die Articulationsweise 
 des vorangehenden j wesentlich beeinflusst und verandert 
 hatte, ahnlich wie das umlautende ^ erst schwand, nachdem 
 es den Vocal der vorhergehenden Silbe umgestaltet hatte. 
 Die beiden Laute waren zu einem neuen eigentiimlichen 
 Gebilde zusammengeschmolzen. . . . Dass das c, ehe 
 es verschwand, palatalisiert war. . . hat man keinen 
 Grund anzunehmen." 
 
 This explanat;ion serves to indicate the general character 
 of the change. In regard to the possibility of sk becoming 
 sif in Anglo-Saxon, Btilbring {Anglia Beiblatt^ 9, 104) re- 
 marks, that the view is not to be accepted that sc at the 
 end of the 9th c, or through the entire Anglo-Saxon 
 period, had the value j + palatal k : note Old Norse words 
 with sk retained, the dropping of c or after-insertion of it 
 in sc in the Vespasian Psalter., its insertion in such forms 
 as scldt., etc. (with the value of a true s(\ Biilbring con- 
 cludes that West Germanic sk at the beginning of the period 
 of literary record had become j^, or at least a sound like 
 it. After referring to the conduct of sk with primary and 
 secondary palatal vowels in Rushworth^ (to be noted later), 
 Biilbring concludes that sk became j;f, at least in Nor- 
 thumbrian, before the time of e'-umlaut. 
 
 In his Elementarbuch (§§ 508 £f.), Biilbring posits de- 
 velopment oisi to j^ before the primary palatal vowels ante- 
 rior to 2-umlaut, and its subsequent development to sH both 
 before primary and before secondary palatals after they 
 had been formed by «-umlaut. This V, he assumes, passed 
 over into forms where there was no palatalization (e. g. 
 3 
 
34 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects, 
 
 sceolon^ sceoldon^ frequent in Aelfred and normal in Aelfric). 
 Apart from this sl^ he posits also an si by independent 
 development, as in scunigan^ scot^ scriid, etc. 
 
 He also says (§ 297) that diphthongization of guttural 
 vowels takes place only after j and st: and the diphthong is 
 necessarily a rising one. " Es scheint jedoch," he contin- 
 ues, " das zwischen den palatalen Konsonanten und dem 
 velaren vokal z. T. nur in der Schrift ein e oder t einge- 
 schoben wurde, um anzudenten, dass g und sc nicht wie 
 [j] und {ski, sondern wie [7] und [j^] auszusprechen 
 waren. . . . Am sichersten ist Diphthongierung anzu- 
 nehmen, wo die Form des urspriinglichen Vokals ver- 
 andert ist, wie in ieogup ; andererseits ist sie am unwahr- 
 scheinlichsten in Texten, welche die palatalen Vokale 
 ganzlich oder teilweise undiphthongiert erhalten." 
 
 Exception may be taken to Biilbring's suggestions regard- 
 ing the distribution of the three sounds derived from sk — 
 s-ji^ sk and sH — and the significance of the glide after j^ before 
 guttural vowels. The problem presented by Northumbrian 
 conditions really centers in the explanation of the forms 
 with sc. In the case of c and g^ diphthongization is spo- 
 radic. The evidence points to a late inception of the 
 affection. It is hardlj"^ possible to construe otherwise the 
 variation in the diphthongization as well as the fact that e 
 remains wholly undiphthongized. This is also true of sc, 
 except that in this case we have evidence of a somewhat 
 more advanced stage of palatal quality, which must be 
 attributed to the nature of the combination, as admitting 
 of self-palatalization. That the combination had become 
 palatal, even when followed by a guttural vowel, is at- 
 tested by numerous cases with e inserted before such 
 vowels. That this sound was sH may be affirmed with con- 
 fidence. It is not credible that sk, followed by a guttural 
 vowel, could develop to j/ with a / so palatal as to cause 
 introduction of a glide. The conditions are in fact the 
 
Northumbrian. 35 
 
 same as those which inhibited development of k and ^ to 
 palatal quality before gutturals. What presumably occurred 
 ■was that the point of contact of the k advanced through 
 influence of the s to x, the s assumed JiT-articulation, and 
 the X then gradually disappeared. On the other hand, sk 
 before palatals developed to j + palatal s^- The difference 
 in this case is that as the point of contact of the k advances, 
 there is no obstacle to its progress presented by the vowel. 
 It becomes palatal, and diphthongization results. In this 
 development, the production of a variant s^, as in the case 
 where a guttural vowel follows, is of course not excluded. 
 This must be carefully noted because of the fact that as 
 the sc is a pure palatal, and made far forward, it does not 
 diphthongize a following palatal vowel. In the case of 
 diphthongization of palatal vowels, as explained above, by 
 y|, jyl, or g, the diphthongization is incidental to the pro- 
 cess of palatalization. With substitution of the unitary 
 sound s^ from the position s^ before the diphthongi- 
 zation takes place, a homorganic combination is formed 
 with the palatal vowel and there is not the requisite differ- 
 ence of quality to produce diphthongization. 
 
 This point is of the highest importance, as upon it de- 
 pends, as will be seen, the explanation of the perplexing 
 variation between diphthongized and undiphthongized 
 forms having original sk. It will be made clearer by a 
 consideration of the nature of the sound represented by j/. 
 Biilbring distinguishes two values for the single symbol he 
 uses (§ 506), one approximately like modern sA in shoe 
 (appearing, for example, in scoi), the other like sk 'va. fishing 
 (appearing in scinan). The latter he calls the ' ' palatale 
 jA-Laut," meaning presumably the sound as produced be- 
 fore palatal vowels ; both sounds are of course palatal. 
 According to the view here proposed, sH^ when developed 
 from sXi or from s^ with partly palatalized ;f, by direct 
 change, somewhat resembles the sh of shoe^ though this 
 
36 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 does not describe it quite accurately. The modem sk is in 
 all cases made too far back along the edges of the tongue- 
 blade. To produce what is conceived to be the true sound, 
 an J must first be articulated with the mouth orifice closely 
 narrowed and with the tip of the tongue and forward part 
 of the blade close to the teeth. Care being taken to keep 
 the mouth orifice narrowed, if sif is now articulated with 
 the extreme end of the blade, it will be found practically 
 impossible to pronounce the word scoi without introducing 
 a distinct glide. After an sif in this position, the palatals 
 <«• and e are articulated without any trace of a glide. If, 
 in the next place, *skoi is pronounced and changed to 
 *s^oiy the tendency to direct change from *sxoi to *stfoi 
 will at once be perceived and the process of the original 
 development of sif from s^ will become clear. 
 
 In the case of u after sif (as in scucca), the glide will be 
 found to be far less noticeable than before o. If next the 
 mouth is widened by retraction of the lips, an instant 
 change to sceocca results. The same is true of /. ^Juky 
 pronounced with the orifice closely narrowed, has a barely 
 perceptible glide, '^jiuk ; with widening, the word changes 
 to *jeok. It is to this that the change of u to eo after si 
 andy is due. The widening in the case of the individual 
 word depends in part upon accident ; hence, u and eo are 
 found beside each other in the latest texts, even in the 
 same word. Where it does occur, it is to be explained as 
 due either to anticipation of guttural vowels (as being 
 ' open ' vowels) in the next syllable, or to the character of 
 the following consonant. In the case of *jung, there is 
 alternation between the u and the eo^ due to weak and 
 other forms of the word ; the u finally persists through 
 influence of the nasal. In the case of geoc^ that form is 
 the prevailing form owing to the opening of the mouth for 
 the clear articulation of the k. It will be observed that 
 no change of stress in the diphthong is necessitated ; hence, 
 
Northumbrian. 37 
 
 there is no difficulty in explaining why geoc gives modern 
 yoke. Occasional change of stress, occurring sporadically 
 when u changes to eo, depends, as will be noted later, upon 
 another cause. 
 
 Before passing to the examples in the texts, we may take 
 note of Biilbring's comments on the examples in I?usk- 
 woriA' {Anglia Beiblatt, 9, 99). He notes that primary 
 palatal vowels are diphthongized after sc, while second- 
 ary are not. As the ' velar ' vowels are not diphthong- 
 ized (scdy sciir, scomu, etc.), he sees exceptions in ym&scedn, 
 dsceacap, scealdun (which, he says, " wohl alle durch 
 sklavisches abschreiben erklart werden mussen ") ; further 
 gisciodne (" unklare form ; einmal ; gesdad in lyi.") ; also 
 {mor)sceapay -o (6), sceopo (2) (this example with its vary- 
 ing ea^ eo, he refers to an isolated form with <^, saying that 
 the word does not appear as -scapa, noting however three 
 cases of scape{na) in Rushwort^, and accordingly assumes 
 early diphthongization in a form with cs, the diphthong 
 being then carried over into the -scapa forms). Sctzcas 
 (imp. pi., one case, beside sceacas in Lindisfarne) presents, 
 he continues, an exception of a diflFerent sort, the (s being 
 carried over from other verbs of the same ablaut-row, e. g. 
 onscsccap ; and he adds also to his list sciolon, scilon, etc. in 
 both RushwortJ^ and Lindisfarne. 
 
 Biilbring later {Elementarbuch, § 301) admits the diph- 
 thongization of a in dsceacap, scealdon, ymbscedn, while 
 reserving judgment concerning the dubious forms with eo. 
 These, with the forms of sculan, will be treated below in 
 connection with the examples in the texts. 
 
 Further (Anglia Beiblatt, 9, 105), Biilbring suggests 
 various possibilities to explain the cessation of diphthong- 
 ization after the time of 2>-umlaut, as in sc&p. The tend- 
 ency to diphthongization may have ceased in the dialect of 
 Rushwortk^ ; or"s2konnt sich mittlerweile weiter nach 
 si hin (oder selbst wirklich zu st) entwickelt haben " ; or 
 
38 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 sx may have remained before 'velar' vowels after the time 
 of z-umlaut, the ^ in sx palatalizing at the same time with 
 k, g^ etc., or, in case this carries the change of sk to $1 too 
 far back, the possibility remains of supposing that sk first 
 developed into sk (with palatal k before primitive palatal 
 vowels) and into sk (with guttural k before ' velar ' vowels), 
 and later (but still before the time of z-umlaut) passed over 
 into jjf and j/. In case one of these developments is not 
 to be assumed to explain undiphthongized palatal vowels 
 in Rushworth^, Biilbring concludes that the acceptance of 
 one is still necessary in the case of West Saxon, where 
 we find cases of undiphthongized secondary palatals, such 
 as scencan and scendan beside sciendan (i, y). 
 
 The explanation of the difficulty, which Biilbring pre- 
 sents so clearly, is to be found in the development of sk 
 suggested above. In the first place, pre-umlaut diphthong- 
 ization is not proved by the fact that secondary palatals 
 are not diphthongized. The development was as follows. 
 Until the period of the text, there had never been diph- 
 thongization after c and g^ as the text shows. There was 
 however, but after the period of z'-umlaut, diphthongization 
 of the primary palatal cs after jI, owing to the peculiar 
 nature of this combination, in which the .r assists the pala- 
 talization ; hence sdp, sceal^ sceatt, sceacere. This diph- 
 thongization is not however due simply to the self-pala- 
 talization of the sk^ but to cooperation of the s and the 
 following palatal vowel. But it was impossible for the 
 forms with secondary palatals to share in this affection. 
 The ?-umlaut works in the forms concerned upon «, ^, 
 CB^ 0, 6. In the case of the a, d, o, 6 the sk had, up to 
 the time of z'-umlaut, remained guttural, standing, as it 
 did, before guttural vowels. At the time the primary 
 palatal cs was diphthongized, the sk standing before the 
 (^, <^, ce, <^, by umlaut had not progressed sufficiently far 
 in assuming palatal quality to enable them to share in 
 
Northumbrian. 39 
 
 that diphthongization. Given a sufficient period of time 
 and supposing no intervening inhibition, they also would 
 normally have developed diphthongs. There was how- 
 ever an inhibiting cause. The influence of the s, which 
 brought about the diphthongization of the primary <^, 
 through cooperation with it in palatalizing k, though k 
 and £■ alone produced no such affection, was also at work 
 where the combination stood before guttural vowels. 
 Here, as explained, the affection operates from the stage 
 sx and produces stf. This new sound had, in the period 
 of the text, diphthongized a. But in this affection the 
 sj[ before secondary palatals shared. It changed to sif, and 
 in consequence formed a homorganic combination with 
 the vowel, and diphthongization did not take place.' 
 
 This explains the immunity of sc(^p, gisccsft., gisc& to 
 diphthongization. Giscee/t, it may be interjected, is assur- 
 edly an example oitshy z-umlaut from a; its immunity here 
 proves it so, as well as West Saxon gesceaft ; for the full 
 explanation, see under the discussion of West Saxon below. 
 The question next arises in regard to z-umlaut of ee. The 
 example is (^gi)sceppa. Biilbring, who argues pre-umlaut 
 diphthongization, explains this form as from *{ge)scezap- 
 pian. This is perfectly legitimate from his point of view, 
 but it may also have umlauted from * {gi)sc(sppan to 
 (gz)sceppa, and the e have remained undiphthongized as in 
 scep{p)end of the Ritual., or indeed the ^'s in general 
 (cf. Ritual., sceld). The diphthongization of e to ie was 
 extremely rare in Northumbrian ; the examples are con- 
 fined to sdp, and the sci{e)ppend of the Ritual. The pres- 
 ence of sdp in Rushworth^, considering general conditions, 
 is sufficient to cast doubt upon its being a genuine case. 
 
 This development is almost precisely identical with 
 
 • Biilbring, it -will be perceived, grazes this explanation in the second 
 of his suggestions above. One main point of diflference is that he assumes 
 pre-umlaut diphthongization. 
 
40 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 that in West Saxon, where indeed the change of sy^ to 
 si; can be approximately dated. The difference is that in 
 West Saxon (and in northern Northumbrian also), there 
 is variation as regards diphthongization of secondary pala- 
 tals. In Rushworth^, which shows a marked disinclination 
 toward diphthongization, the whole affection is at a back- 
 ward stage, relatively speaking, and quite consistently so. 
 There is no diphthongization after c, g ; after sc only in 
 the case of the primary palatal cs ; none of secondary pala- 
 tals, because of the anterior development of si; and the 
 diphthongization of gutturals by sif is displayed only in 
 the case of a. Even here it is possible that sporadic cases 
 of diphthongization of secondary palatals would appear, 
 were the examples more numerous. 
 
 To take up now the examples in the Ritual and Lindis- 
 farne : in the case of the northern dialect of Northum- 
 brian, the whole grade of normal palatal affection is more 
 advanced than in the southern dialect of RushwortB . 
 There is sporadic diphthongization after c^g where in 
 Rushworth ' there is none. The primary (^ is regularly 
 diphthongized after sc: sceaccerum, sceal^ sceattas. The 
 forms with secondary palatals exhibit a striking diver- 
 sity, for the explanation of which their relation to the 
 change of s-^ to sH is to be considered, together with the 
 influence of related forms. The evidence indicates that 
 in general, the change of sy^ to si inhibited diphthongiza- 
 tion, as in Rushworth; the combination had also, in certain 
 cases, an unchecked development and occasioned diph- 
 thongization. 
 
 Ascecsccen occurs beside asctzccenum in the Ritual. The 
 normal development, according to the explanation above, 
 would be that this word was not susceptible of diphthongi- 
 zation at the time the primary vowels were diphthongized, 
 and was inhibited from diphthongizing later by the change 
 of its syi (perhaps partly palatalized) to sL To this, the 
 
Northumbrian. 41 
 
 undiphthongized form is due. The diphthongized form is 
 indecisive. As the verb has a diphthong due to sc before 
 a in all the forms in Lz'ndisfarne, it is possible the diph- 
 thong in this form is due to scribal transfer, which would 
 be the case also in the scecBcende of Lindisfarne. But it 
 is more probable that both forms are due to retention of sy^ 
 through support of the preterit, which in due course be- 
 came palatal, and then occasioned diphthongization. 
 
 Sceaft appears in two well-defined forms : sccsft in the 
 Ritual (37 : i); sceaft (sceczft) in Lindisfarne (4 : i). Allu- 
 sion has already been made to the fact that the word is to 
 be regarded as an umlaut form, going back to a pre-umlaut 
 form with a. Two explanations are possible for the 
 recorded forms, (i) The original sy^ may have persisted 
 in this word throughout, and it may accordingly have 
 diphthongized only late and sporadically, appearing, as it 
 does, with a diphthong once in the Ritual., four times in 
 Lindisfarne. The objection to this is the large number of 
 cases undiphthongized in the Ritual., in which the extension 
 of St: is so well-defined, as well as the nature of the sk com- 
 bination, which normally, if conditions suit (as they do by 
 hypothesis), would cause general diphthongization. (3) 
 The word, according to the assumed normal development, 
 in its regular form underwent change of sy to si., whence 
 the prevailing form in the Ritual., and the single case in 
 Lindisfarne., without diphthongization. Beside this regu- 
 lar form a variant with sy persisted, which diphthongized, 
 appearing in a single case in the Ritual and in four cases in 
 Lindisfarne. This is the preferable explanation. That 
 such a variant should appear is indeed to be expected. 
 
 The next example, toscicende (pret. 3 sing.) beside tos- 
 c&nas is a case of similar variation. 
 
 The forms of the verb sceppa., namely gisceap ' (appear- 
 ing in one case in the Ritual., 168. 7, apparently not cited 
 by lyindelof ; the passage is hearte dene gisceap ' glossing 
 
43 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 cor mundum crea\ sccsp{^p)end, sc§ppend^ scep(^p)end, sciep- 
 pend, scippend, ascaepen^ show an interesting development. 
 On the evidence of the record, the pre-umlaut present stem 
 had the form skap- as well as skcsp-. From this stem skap- 
 were derived by umlaut the participial forms with cb. 
 These forms show the assumed normal absence of diph- 
 thongization due to development of sL Gisceap ', in the 
 imperative, was originally either *-skapi or *-sk(spi. In 
 the second case, it might escape umlaut to e as falling in 
 with the umlauted forms having a. Its (s was in that 
 case primary and diphthongized with other primary cz's. If 
 the CB is secondary, from a in *skapi^ its s-^ escaped change 
 to si through influence of the preterit-system, where the s-ji 
 must have remained longer than before the a of the present 
 system. As regards the noun gisccBp\ gisccBpp'es^ it is either 
 (with some hesitation) to be viewed as a case of umlaut 
 with lyindelof (§ 3, 2) and Biilbring {Anglia Beiblait, 6, jy), 
 or it must be assumed that, though having primary cb in 
 the singular, it retained j;f by influence of the plural and 
 of the verb. 
 
 The participial forms with e, in the next place, are de- 
 rived from pre-umlaut forms with cb. Here the e is second- 
 ary, but the ce from which it was derived was primary, and 
 its sj^ accordingly was at an advanced stage of palataliza- 
 tion, when diphthongization of primary vowels occurred. 
 Normally, e does not diphthongize (cf. sceld with original 
 «, sceppa with secondary e in this same text). But there 
 appears in this word, beside normal sceppend^ scepend^ also 
 diphthongized forms, scieppend^ scippend^ paralleled only in 
 sdp. Frequency of use may probably have been a factor in 
 both cases. In the case of sceppa, palatalization of the s^ 
 was possibly hindered by the noun scapa, though here we 
 have no evidence of transfer of the vowel as well (giving 
 *scaeppa by umlaut) as we have in West Saxon. This, it 
 may be added, applies also to the sceppa of Rushworih^. 
 
Northumbrian. 43 
 
 Development of j<r before guttural vowels and its exten- 
 sion, indicated by introduction of the glide, appears in the 
 list of examples (pp. 21, 23, 23) and does not call for com- 
 ment. The point of chief interest and importance is its 
 relation to the development of secondary palatal vowels 
 just discussed. The examples just examined seem to 
 indicate that the s^ supplanted the s^ in these forms, 
 preventing normal diphthongization ; exceptions of course 
 occur, as in gesceaft beside gisccBft. This hypothesis ex- 
 plains the diversity of the recorded forms, and, as will be 
 found later, explains analogous diversities in West Saxon ; 
 in Mercian, it may be added, the question does not occur, 
 owing to entire lack of diphthongization, while in Kentish 
 the material is defective, owing probably to Mercian and 
 West Saxon influence. 
 
 Certain points in regard to the sc may be briefly touched 
 upon. The forms of scula} present exceptions which call for 
 explanation. Sccsl in Lindisfarne suggests that this was the 
 original form of the ist person present indicative, as 
 indeed it would be normally, in which case sceal represents 
 diphthongization of a primary palatal, as has been assumed 
 above. But a variant seal was also possible by conforma- 
 tion with the second person, which must have had the form 
 *scalt^ and this variant occurs in the Ritual, and (with scalt) 
 in Rushworth}. The scealde of Lindisfarne cannot be re- 
 ferred simply to transfer of the diphthong of the present, 
 supplanting o ; it is due to conformation of sceolde^ with 
 a diphthong from sL Possible influence of sH on the u of 
 the present plural is obscured by transfer of the vowel of 
 the optative with subsequent u-o umlaut {sciolon, scilon), as 
 Biilbring pointed out {Anglia Beiblatt, 9,99), but early de- 
 velopment of the si in the preterit and transfer of it to the 
 
 ^It is not quite clear why Cook in his Glossary lists the forms of this 
 word under sciola. Sceola is presumably possible, but the present plural 
 indicative sciolon is due to a special cause, as noted below. 
 
44 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 present took place in Northumbrian, no doubt, as in West 
 Saxon, wbere the word outruns other words (see below). 
 This explains sccsl of Lindisfarne^ without diphthongiza- 
 tion, beside sceal. 
 
 To touch briefly upon one or two of Biilbring's exam- 
 ples, cited by him in the article already quoted {Anglia 
 Beiblatt^ 9)99)- ^^'^ forms {mor)scedpa^ -o, {mor)sceopo, he 
 assumes to have developed from a form with ^, as the 
 interchange of ea and eo points to a falling diphthong. 
 The matter is one only of incidental interest, and does not 
 bear upon the general development, but it may be asked 
 whether in forms of this character, a reason may not be 
 given for the falling diphthong, which the forms appar- 
 ently evidence. Primarily and normally, such words have 
 rising diphthongs. There are, however, what may be 
 called for convenience u-o umlaut conditions present. 
 This umlaut, in the opinion of the writer, does not operate 
 by anticipation on the stem-vowel of the vowel of the 
 subsequent syllable, in the sense that a glide vowel of 
 similar quality to the subsequent vowel attaches itself to 
 the stem -vowel. It is due to a hostile dissimilarity between 
 the stem-vowel and the subsequent vowel, and the physiolo- 
 gical inclination to render the last part of the word so far as 
 possible homorganic, if the intervening consonant or com- 
 bination of consonants permits. The vowel divides into 
 two elements. The first of these is palatal (in the case of 
 a taking the form of cs), the second becomes obscure, and 
 passes into a guttural glide, accommodated in height to 
 the first element : — for example, ge/an > *ge9/an ^ geafan 
 > geofan ; hafoc > * hcB9foc > *hezafoc > heafoc. This 
 is preferable to assuming a glide of similar quality with the 
 umlauting element. It is difficult to understand how the 
 cb(u\ cs{p)^ posited by Biilbring {Elemenfarbuch, § 229.4), 
 become ea. 
 
 The special point of significance at present is the fact that 
 
Northumbrian. 45 
 
 the diphthong is a falling diphthong. A similar influence 
 can be conjectured in the case of the rising diphthongs 
 produced by palatals from gutturals. Anticipation of the 
 open vowel of the second syllable causes the change of 
 articulation noted above (see p. 36), but it may also ope- 
 rate to change the stress of the diphthong. The diphthong 
 is already formed ; this tendency is merely in the direction 
 of rendering the latter part of the word homorganic from 
 the glide or second element of the diphthong on. 
 
 This influence seems to appear in certain words with/. 
 It cannot be assumed with confidence of words with sir, 
 owing to the lateness of their diphthongization. The 
 forms with varying ea, eo, adduced by Bulbring, belong 
 properly to the group that has been assumed above, that 
 have u-o umlant of a after ^, k, sk. This explains the 
 difl&culties upon which Biilbring comments (see also 
 Anglia Beiblatt, 11,94, note i). The diphthong formed is 
 a falling one. There is no need of assuming an original 
 sccspa with Biilbring, the phonetic propriety of which is 
 not manifest. The isolated case he cites with cs is simply 
 a variant with the diphthong not fully developed. Biil- 
 bring is inclined to explain the forms ' tosceodd' (dispone), 
 ' togisceode ' {interpretabatur\ beside tosceadep, in Rush- 
 worth', as having eo for ea from tz umlant in the 2d and 
 3d persons. But this, as he notes, would contradict scezp 
 in the same text. If, however, these forms are referred to 
 u-o umlant of a after sc in the infinitive, first person sin- 
 gular, and in the plural present, etc., the diflSculty disap- 
 pears. Variation occurs in this early formed diphthong, 
 as it does not for example, in dsceacap, scealdun 
 
 The forms with e, S, as already remarked, undergo diph- 
 thongization only in scHe)ppend, scip ; but sceld in the 
 Ritual, sceppa in all the texts, scene (calix), (-) scenda of Lin- 
 disfarne, and scelfap of the Leyden Riddle are none of them 
 diphthongized. The changes assumed are then as follows : 
 
46 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 I . Diphthongization of primary cs after original sk (prob- 
 ably with the palatal spirant), subsequent to e-umlaut. 
 
 3. Of original ^ in sdp and secondary e in sci{e)ppend, 
 both exceptional cases. 
 
 3. Of a after g, k, sk, by u-o umlaut. 
 
 4. Development of scf from s^, causing insertion of a 
 glide, before gutturals ; also affecting the forms with origi- 
 nal e, S, except sdp^ and with secondary ts, e, except 
 scii^ppend^ inhibiting diphthongization except in occa- 
 sional variants which retained sk (or jI). 
 
 5. Diphthongization of these variants. 
 
 6. Sporadic diphthongization after I, ^. 
 
 The relation of 2 to 4 is uncertain, as it is conceivable 
 that the forms under 2 may have retained s-^; but 2 
 probably preceded. The relation of 3 to 4 is only conjec- 
 tural and based upon the fact that, in West Saxon, as will 
 appear later, the change of sy^ to sH (4) seems to have taken 
 place about the close of the 8th century, and may presum- 
 ably have taken place at about the same period in North- 
 umbrian, being due simply to the influence of j upon the 
 original k (compare the somewhat similar degree of exten- 
 sion of diphthongs from st: before gutturals in West Saxon 
 and northern Northumbrian texts of similar date), together 
 with the fact that in the Leyden Riddle^ usually dated 
 befote 740, the form geatum occurs. The first change 
 may be conjecturally dated between about 650 and 700, the 
 third about 700. The sixth change is indeterminate, but is 
 plainly late and sporadic. The diphthongization noted 
 did not evidently, as Middle English conditions show, 
 affect permanently the words concerned. Traces however 
 of permanent influence of j appear. Decision was not 
 reached with regard to the word^<^/, gate^ as to whether the 
 diphthongized forms were due to late sporadic diphthongi- 
 zation (6) or were due to influence of the plural (which 
 must have been in frequent use). That a was not affected 
 
Northumbrian. 
 
 47 
 
 by u-o umlaut in Northumbrian is clear enough, but while, 
 in other cases with sporadic diphthongization (e. g. ^ce/) 
 there is no trace of ^ in the later forms, in this form we 
 have in Scotch the iorm. yeii, quite out of place apparently 
 in the north. 
 
 Passing to the original j, we may remind ourselves 
 that it stands on a diflferent plane from I, g, sk. It is, for 
 one chief point, itself a palatal, and therefore does not 
 effect the same results as the palatals during their develop- 
 ment from original gutturals. The affection it produces 
 does not, further, exhibit different results in different dia- 
 lects. For example, it is not proper to argue that because 
 k, g, effect no diphthongization in a text, that j does not ; 
 as pointed out in the general discussion, diphthongization 
 produced by the/ is general Anglo-Saxon. To illustrate, 
 — Biilbring is seemingly mistaken in saying {Anglia Bei- 
 blatt, 9,99) that, as g and k do not diphthongize in Rush- 
 worth?., therefore gmg and gigop must be explained as due 
 to z'-umlaut and unrounding of the resulting _j/, and that 
 bigeonda is due to <7-umlaut of e : see the discussion of 
 these forms later. Biilbring treats the / as if it were 
 equivalent to g., whereas it is originally palatal, not a 
 palatalized guttural. This view further constrains him in 
 the case of higienda to posit an original *byendan^ and 
 to assume in a part of Northumbrian, after the time of 
 e-umlaut, a diphthongization by /' of palatal vowels — 
 which is indeed a limitation or exception to his general 
 theory. Diphthongization of an e caused by a / is surely 
 inherently unlikely. In this case, a number of additional 
 difficulties would also have to be met, and, as it is, a 
 most complicated explanation, involving special dialectal 
 developments, is rendered necessary. 
 
 As assumed above, j\ as a palatal, does not, before a pala- 
 tal vowel (except possibly cb\ cause introduction of a glide. 
 Before gutturals, however, a glide is introduced, producing 
 
48 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 a rising diphthong, which may become a falling diphthong 
 in rare cases. The examples are as follows : 
 
 {Ritual) iocce beside iwocce ; gtungo ; gigop (-); gieond- 
 fcBr; gte (pron.) ; gie (adv.) ; gtr ; {Lindisfarne Mark) gi, 
 '■gS' ; '■ge& ; '■giee' (adv.); 'giee' ; gig ope ; ging ; bigi- 
 enda; geone, geane ; gSt, ^gif ; {John) gi^ 'gS', 'gee\ 
 gie; 'gee' (adv.), 'gie\ 'geS\ gi ; gSt, gitt, 'gcef ; giungra ; 
 g^r-: bigeonda, begeande. 
 
 The form iocce is equivalent to *giuc, *geoc ; the form 
 iwocc has already been referred to as proving that initial i 
 represents the first element of a diphthong. The ordinary 
 iorva.geocc is recorded in Matthew^ ii-30, etc. 
 
 The various forms from the stem geong- have caused 
 much discussion. Sievers {Beiirage^ 9>207) expressed his 
 belief that gingra and gingesta developed from *gien- 
 gra^ *giengesia, admitting however his inability to ad- 
 duce examples and pointing to the additional diflSculty 
 that these forms are found in Anglian along with 
 ging and gigop. Biilbring {Anglia Beiblatt, 9)99) on the 
 strength of the general lack of diphthongization in Rush- 
 worth^ argues that ging and gigop must have developed 
 through z^umlaut of u and subsequent unrounding. " Da- 
 her miissen ^ng und gigop durch z-umlaut von u und 
 entrundung des so entstandenen y ^rklart werden, gerade 
 wie scile {ging schon in den Blickling-Glossen, aus der 
 ersten halfte des achten jhdts., welche Sweet, GET. s. 122, 
 fiir ostmercisch zu halten geneigt ist). Femer muss eben- 
 deshalb das in Ru.' viermal vorkommende bigkonda durch 
 <7-umlaut von e erklart werden (gerade wie das zweimaligie 
 bihionda durch <?-umlaut von ?), mit spaterer dehnung des 
 eo (und \o) vor nd (Beiblatt 9,67) ; vgl. me. bijknde, begin- 
 den, b&i^nde, bij^ndis (belegstellen bei Stratmann-Brad- 
 ley). Friihnordh. *bigenda{n) aber ist als neubildung nach 
 *gend aufzufassen, dass im Me. als jSnd belegt ist und (nach 
 einer brieflichen mitteilung Morsbach's) notwendig i-xxm- 
 
Northumbrian. 49 
 
 laut voraussetzt, im gegensatz zu jSnd < ae geSncf. Auch 
 Li. hat (zweimal) begSonda und (einmal) deg€anua. Auch 
 hier beweist der wechsel von eo und ea fallende aussprache. 
 Daneben kommt zweimal ohne o-umlaut degtenda vor 
 (< *di/endan), eine form, die mit andern (in I,i. und Ri.) 
 darauf hinweist, dass in einem teile des Nordb. auch nach 
 der zeit des «-umlaut noch diphthongierungen palataler 
 vokale stattfinden konnten." 
 
 Biilbring in this explanation errs, it would seem, in 
 that he regards / as if it were similar phonetically and 
 parallel chronologically, as regards the changes it causes, 
 to the palatalized spirant g. The fact that g {<.g) and c 
 in RushwortK are not followed by diphthongization is 
 no criterion for /. As already pointed out, this sound as 
 an original palatal must effect diphthongization of gut- 
 tural vowels in all dialects. 
 
 Apart from this leading objection, certain specific dif- 
 ficulties appear. Biilbring is obliged to posit ?-umlaut 
 in gigop. He supposes umlaut to y and unrounding both 
 in this word and in ging. These forms, it may be in- 
 terjected, he regards as the prevailing forms in North- 
 umbrian, according to the Elementarbuch, § 298, though 
 ging does not occur in the Ritual and though in Lindis- 
 farne the relation of ging (-) to giung (-) is five to five. 
 The umlaut to y and unrounding, he supports by scile in 
 RushworM. But in the Psalter., gingrum and gingiva) 
 appear beside gungra, gungesta, gugupe, etc., though in 
 this text y is unrounded to i in only two cases out of a 
 large number, and y to i only once. Further, he posits 
 special diphthongization in begienda in Lindis/arne, advert- 
 ing to other forms diphthongized after z-umlaut. The 
 only cases that are comparable are those of gi^, pronoun 
 and adverb, which indeed (in the Elementarbuch, § 396) he 
 explains as examples of a diphthongization later than that 
 of secondary palatal vowels, diphthongized forms beside 
 
50 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects, 
 
 undiphthongized appearing in the texts. E is uniformly 
 undiphthongized after c and g (from g), and also after sc, 
 except in sdp (which he would regard as pre-umlaut) and 
 the isolated sd{e)ppeftd. And it must be remembered 
 further that it is not to be expected that the/ would diph- 
 thongize a palatal vowel, especially one of the grade of e. 
 
 In taking up the forms in detail, exception must first be 
 made to the assumption of umlaut in gigop. This is con- 
 tradicted by West Saxon, and especially by the Psalter 
 where, though the forms gingrum^ gi'"-g^'^ appear, this 
 word appears uniformly with u. The method in which 
 umlaut can have affected the word, and still have left it in 
 the form recorded, is not clear. The simpler supposition 
 is to regard it as due to a change of stress in a diph- 
 thongized form followed by monophthongization. Here 
 reference may be made to what was said above in regard 
 to the influence of a strong guttural in the second, sylla- 
 ble, as tending to effect change of stress. *Jivigop becomes 
 *j'iogop^ and this becomes *jtgop, written gigop. 
 
 The forms of the adjective with i {ging beside giun- 
 gra, etc.) are due to a diflerent cause, at least in part. Influ- 
 ence of the umlauted comparative and superlative may in 
 the first place be assumed. But, in these, it is not neces- 
 sary to assume unrounding of y. Given a form *jmng-, 
 the tendency of umlaut would be to produce a form *Jiyng-, 
 in which case the y would merge with the i to a resulting i. 
 Further, apart from this, the weak forms of the positive 
 might undergo change of stress, owing to the guttural 
 element in the second syllable, and subsequent monoph- 
 thongization. As a result, the record shows a positive in 
 both forms, giung and ging, beside each other, with com- 
 paratives and superlatives to each. In regard to the mon- 
 ophthongization, compare scip and scippend. 
 
 In begeondUy there is clear evidence of a falling diph- 
 thong in the begeande beside begeonda, bigeonda of John. 
 
Northumbrian. 51 
 
 Here too we have the necessary condition for change of 
 stress in the original form of the word. A similar varia- 
 tion appears in geana^ geane beside geona, geoncz, geone, 
 (see Cook, s. v. geona). This has a bearing upon the 
 exceptional form begienda, in which Biilbring assumes 
 umlaut. The necessity of positing umlaut in Middle 
 English jend is, it would seem, in view of such a change of 
 stress, obviated. There seems to be no difficulty in sup- 
 posing monophthongization from forms with a falling 
 diphthong, by which geond is affected, producing *gend^ 
 whence the Middle English form. However this may be, 
 and whether or no begienda is due to umlaut, it is not 
 necessary to posit, with Bulbring, a special diphthongiza- 
 tion of e to ie. The ground-form is *bijenda. In the case 
 of -geonda, -geanda, the change of stress is to be explained 
 as due to the guttural in the second syllable. Owing to 
 anticipation of this guttural, causing the latter part of the 
 word to become more homorganic, the stress is changed 
 and further (see the explanation above, p. 36) the mouth-ori- 
 fice is widened, the mouth opened, and the lips somewhat 
 retracted, causing the / to be articulated in quite another 
 position. In consequence of this (a fact which can be 
 readily verified by experiment) the j partly loses its pure 
 consonantal nature and assumes a sound Ji. The pure 
 /-sound was on the contrary made far forward with the 
 orifice narrowed ; when so made, there is no trace of the 
 vocalic quality. The form in question *bijenda, it is then 
 to be assumed, was articulated like begeonda, bigeanda, 
 and as a consequence the vowel assumed the form ie. Con- 
 sequently, it is not to be regarded in any sense as a true 
 palatal diphthongization. Reference may be made in this 
 connection to the form beienda, Matthew., 9) 20, in which 
 the i is to be interpreted as vocalic and the / receives no 
 expression. According to this view then, it becomes prob- 
 able that *bejenda was not due to umlaut, but was a mon- 
 
53 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 ophthongization of begeonday bigeanda^ which assumed the 
 form begienda as a natural consequence of the mode of 
 articulation of the form from which it developed.' 
 
 In confirmation of this explanation, the fact may be 
 pointed out that in g^r^ gH^ in numerous examples, there 
 is no trace of diplithongization. The form gcet^ listed by 
 Fiichsel, is presumably due to orthographic substitution 
 of (B for e. Cook does not give it. 
 
 The form gieondfcer in the Ritual is a confused form of 
 geond due to the gi commonly written in giung^ gie, or is 
 due to confusion between geond and a possible *giend. 
 
 The forms of the personal pronoun and of the adverb, 
 gie, ^giee\ beside gS^ ^gee\geSy etc., developed like begienda, 
 except that in this case, the widening of the mouth-orifice 
 and change of / to j'i were due to lack of stress. Change 
 of stress accompanied this sporadically, as proved by the 
 form gi. Btilbring, in explaining the forms gie, etc., as 
 cases of late palatal diphthongization, refers to gi as due to 
 lack of stress. It is not easy to understand how mere lack 
 of stress would at once convert a rising diphthong of the 
 kind he posits to a falling diphthong and cause its second 
 element to disappear. But according to the explanation 
 given, change of stress may readily occur. 
 
 The sporadic cases of the pronoun '■gez'' (hence ^giez'') in 
 Lindisfarne (see Cook) are due to conformation to '•wae\ 
 occurring beside z«/l, or to lack of stress. 
 
 In conclusion, emphasis must again be laid on the fact 
 that j as a palatal does not palatalize palatal vowels, as 
 evidenced by g^ (in its normal form), gH^ and g^r. 
 
 'In this connexion, incidental reference may be made to the occasional 
 sporadic prefixing of g to words with vocalic anlaut, of the type oigeador 
 beside eador. The usual explanation that the palatal spirant g had 
 become so tenuous, that it was accidentally, as it were, prefixed, is far 
 from satisfactory. If however the word eador is pronounced with the 
 mouth opened instead of narrowed, though with the e still pure in quality, 
 it will be seen that a jc-sound readily prefixes itself. 
 
Northumbrian. 53 
 
 Diphthongization by j of guttural vowels cannot be 
 definitely dated. It may however, with some confidence, be 
 placed early — that is, before «-umlaut. Sufiicient warrant 
 is found for this conclusion in the fact that the conditions 
 for diphthongization were inherent in the sound, and in 
 the uniformity of development evidenced by the various 
 dialects. 
 
III. 
 
 MERCIAN. 
 
 * 
 
 The text used is the Vespasian^ formerly called the Kent- 
 ish Psalter^ as represented in Zeuner's Sprache des Kent- 
 ischen Psalters^ Halle, 1881, followed by a brief survey of the 
 forms in the Rushworth Glosses on Matthew {Rushworth^) 
 as classified by Brown, Die Sprache der Rushworth Glossen 
 zum Evangelium Matthaus und der Mersische Dialect, 
 GottingeUj I, 1891, II, 1892. With these are considered, 
 for convenience, the Epinal, Corpus, and Erfurt Glossaries. 
 These three glossaries have long been tentatively regarded 
 as Kentish, or Mixed Kentish and Mercian, or Mercian with 
 an admixture of Kentish and West Saxon. Chadwick's ex- 
 haustive examination {Studies in Old English, p. 157) 
 leads him to believe that the original glossary, which he 
 styles Archetype i, was East Saxon ; the Epinal also East 
 Saxon, but nearer the West Saxon border; the Erfurt 
 Kentish ; and the Corpus probably Mercian, but not south- 
 western Mercian, with some admixture of Kentish and 
 West Saxon. The question of the dialect of these glossa- 
 ries is not of primary importance, in view of the fact that 
 their testimony is uniform. Use is made of Dieter's mono- 
 graph, Ueber Sprache und Mundart der altesten englishen 
 Denkmaler der Epinaler und Cambridger Glossen mit 
 Beriicksichtigung des Erfurter Glossars, Gottingen, 1885, 
 and Chadwick's " Studies in Old English ", in the Trans- 
 actions of the Cambridge Philological Society, 1899, 4,2, 
 
 85-265. 
 
 The texts under this heading demand but brief treatment 
 as regards diphthongization after the c, g, and sc. Diph- 
 thongized forms, except for one or two cases in Rush- 
 worth^, do not occur. This fact is, however, most nota- 
 ble and significant. The diphthongizations caused by/, it 
 
 (54) 
 
Mercian. 55 
 
 may be added, are in consequence the more striking, and 
 bear out what has already been said regarding the necessity 
 of keeping j disassociated from original ^, with which, 
 owing to the method of its orthographic expression, there 
 has been a tendency to identify it. 
 
 I. The Vespasian Psalter. 
 
 " Eine einwurkung der palat. auf den folgenden vokal," 
 says Zeuner (§ 40.1), " ist im Ps. so gut wie gar nicht zu 
 spuren."" 
 
 Examples of cs without diphthongization after c,^ (§ 40) 
 are cester ; get (gate), gete ; onget (pret.) ; also (§ 8.II. 2. a.), 
 in contrast to Northumbrian, gegadrade. There is no 
 diphthongization after sc. Westemsceat (§§ 8.II, and 39) 
 is correctly explained by Zeuner (compare also Paul, Bei- 
 trage^ 6,39) as due to u-o umlaut in the plural ; compare 
 westemsceattum. In other words, the diphthong has run 
 through the plural ; compare weagas^ weogum, geata 
 (§ 8.II. 2. a.). From the plural, the diphthong has been 
 transferred to the singular in the isolated form cited, which 
 occurs beside the normal form westemscette. 
 
 It is not necessary to list examples. 
 
 The question at once suggests itself why diphthongiza- 
 tion is lacking in the Psalter^ and an answer can be given 
 which renders the text consistent in its record with the 
 conditions in Northumbrian. In Mercian, the cb of North- 
 umbrian and West Saxon has been further heightened to e. 
 In Northumbrian, while the ce is diphthongized sporadic- 
 ally, the e is not diphthongized, except in sdp^ sci{e)ppendy 
 which are offset by numerous examples, including cases 
 with the special combination sc. It is wholly natural, 
 therefore, that in Mercian the inception of the infection 
 was precluded by the grade of the cb vowel. Inhibition 
 of a general tendency would also prevent its cooperation 
 with 2t-o umlaut (compare gegadrades % 1.4). Cea/urtun, 
 
56 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 cea/oriun, ceaful- are due simply to u-o umlaut. Direct 
 evidence of the change of sc to sg is not afforded by inser- 
 tion of a glide e. But Zeuner notes (§ 39): " Bei anlau- 
 tendem sc ist einigermale das c nicht geschrieben oder nach- 
 korrigirt : tosaecendes 28,8 ; seate 34,13 (sceate St.) ; jesild 
 16,8 ; onsuniende 105,40 {-scuniende St.) ; nacbkorrigirt in 
 descended 70,1 ; biscered 83,13 ; scomien 39,15 {c von 2. hd.). 
 scomiende 69,4. scome 68,20 ; in scome 39,16 steht das c auf 
 rasur. Ein scbreibfeler is jeseende 118,78 fiir jescende^ 
 Zeuner adds in a note the observation, to which the exam- 
 ples indubitably point, " Diirfen wir in diesen schreibun- 
 gen vielleicht schon einen hinweis auf den aufang der 
 entwickelung des sc zum palat. zischlaut erblicken ? " 
 
 The form gildu (§ 40. i), beside numerous forms of the 
 verb with e and eo (by u-o umlaut), is due to the 2d and 
 3d persons. 
 
 Original/ appears in the following forms (§§ 21, 27) : 
 
 i : iungra ; iugra ; iugupe ; also as usual in proper 
 nouns. 
 
 gi: gingrum ; gingiva). 
 
 ge : geond ; g&amrung beside gimrung with monoph- 
 thongization. 
 
 g : ge ; get ; gif; g^r ; gunge (3) ; gungra ; gungesta ,• 
 gujtup (read gugup) ; guiupe ; gugupe ; {gti)gupe. 
 
 The individual feature in these examples is the use of g 
 before u ; there are no cases of Ju- in the form geo-. This 
 does not argue that the glide was not present in the spoken 
 word ; merely, that before w, as a close vowel, it is not 
 noticeable and does not require orthographic expression 
 (compare above, p. 36). Only when the combination is 
 pronounced with the mouth widened and the vowel as- 
 sumes the form eo, is the recognition of a glide enforced 
 upon the scribe. That the glide was present is indicated 
 by the forms gingrum^ gingra^ explained above. It is in 
 this text that Biilbring's explanation fails, because of the 
 
Mercian. 57 
 
 extreme rarity of the unrounding of y to i Further that 
 the symbol used, j, connotes a vocalic element appears in 
 its uniform use in inlaut ; kerjap, herjende, lif^an (beside 
 Ufiende)^ can only mean heriap^ etc. Before o, d the glide 
 is more pronounced, as the vowel is more open, and accord- 
 ingly receives expression in geond, giamrung. This text 
 is merely individual in using g before u. In other texts, 
 where u is retained, recourse is had to the e-spelling, and 
 the g is used only with eo or io — ^an incidental conforma- 
 tion of the view that the « connotes a consonantal and vocalic 
 element. 
 
 G-ingra., gingrum^ and gugtip, have been sufficiently 
 treated above. 
 
 The foTta g^mrung, which occurs twice beside numer- 
 ous forms of giamrung, is explained by L. Morsbach 
 {Anglia Beiblatt, 7,^25 f. ; compare also Biilbring, Element- 
 arbuch^ § 192, note) as derived from *jdmirungy the m 
 losing its power to affect the d to d through influence of 
 the i. Hence it appears with Anglian S On the other 
 hand, the more common form appears with d (compare Biil- 
 bring, ib. § 299). This explanation is not satisfactory ; 
 the relation of the two forms is not clear. If the d is 
 retained by influence of the ?", appearing as i in g^mrung, 
 why does it not appear everywhere as ^ .^ To preserve 
 the d, whence the form giamrung is derived, the influence 
 of i has to be posited, and if that is the case, and it can be 
 supposed that in some way the d escaped the change to <?, 
 it does not appear why it was not umlauted, whether still 
 unaffected or already diphthongized by the/. Furthermore 
 to posit an original form with umlaut conditions necessi- 
 tates supposing it a special dialectal form. 
 
 It seems preferable, therefore, to discard in this word the 
 supposition of z-umlaut and to assume a normal form simi- 
 lar to the West Saxon gedmrung. This becomes by 
 change of stress *gSomrung^ and, by change of io to la, 
 
58 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 giamrung (compare the use of ia for So in § 19. II). The 
 form with ia is the accepted form in the scribe's use, and 
 the variant gimrung is due to monophthongization. The 
 word, it will be observed, is one in which change of stress 
 would occur. 
 
 2. Rushworth'. 
 
 The somewhat anomalous conditions characteristic of 
 this text, due apparently to dialectal admixture, are appar- 
 ent in the case of palatal diphthongization. The examples 
 with is{e) are as follows : ccBstr-{2^ beside ceastr- (5); ceaf; 
 gcefel^ gafi- (8) ; -gcBgn (7), ongcBn ; aetgedre ; gegadrade ; 
 geatt (-) (3) ; -sceatta ; sceal. The evidence, on the whole, 
 points to absence of diphthongization, as in the Psalms ; 
 the few indubitable cases, in which diphthongization ap- 
 pears, ceaster, ceaf, sceal, may be due to West Saxon influ- 
 ence, while geatt (^ and sceatta may be referred to u-o 
 umlaut. 
 
 Secondary palatals, e, S (beside &, < West Germanic d), 
 are not diphthongized. The variants of the normal scSp 
 attract attention. ScSp, with tz for i, may perhaps be, as 
 Biilbring tentatively suggests {Elementarbuch, § 153, 
 note), a Saxon i)atois form without diphthongization ; 
 gSfon affords another example. Sdp is presumably North- 
 umbrian ; its variant, sciopum, is of special interest, as due 
 to conformation, by u-o umlaut, of sciep, the unmonoph- 
 thongized form of sdp, like West Saxon giofol, ongiotan, 
 iox giefol, ongietan. Sc before guttural vowels (§§ 8, 34c, 
 53, d) does not introduce a glide. The examples are scape, 
 scapena, ascakep, scade, scamul, scalde, sculde, scdn (pret.), 
 sceddan (or sciadan), scdas, qfersc-tiade. Several of these ex- 
 amples are in themselves inconclusive. Scamul, as in other 
 texts, might preserve its a through influence of the I^atin. 
 Scdn and scdas might be alternative forms to forms with 
 the diphthong (compare Aelfric's Homilies, scds, scdn, two 
 
Mercian. 59 
 
 cases, scedan, seeds, two cases). The u in sculde, o/erscHade, 
 might be undiphthongized as elsewhere. But scape, scap0- 
 na, ascakep, scade, scalde, are, when considered together 
 with these forms and as supporting one another, conclusive 
 with regard to the absence of the diphthongization. Some 
 doubt is cast upon this conclusion by four cases of sceddan 
 (or scSadati) with, the diphthong (^gesceadip\ etc.) to but one 
 with d, (dscddep.) Biilbring {Elementarbuch, § 294) prefers 
 to consider these as examples of diphthongization of cb by 
 i-umlant. If so, they should be classed with the few 
 isolated cases of diphthongization of cs noted above, and 
 would tend to render doubtful the possibility that those 
 cases are not Mercian. 
 
 The safest explanation is plainly that diphthongization 
 of gutturals is not represented in the text. As the pho- 
 netic nature of sk and the testimony of Northumbrian and 
 West Saxon both warrant the conclusion that diphthong- 
 ization should normally appear at this time, even in a text 
 that shows slight traces of diphthongization in general, a 
 special influence must be assumed. This was probably the 
 influence of Scandinavian sk. 
 
 Original / (II. § 9) demands special attention. It appears 
 as i in proper names, and is also unusually common in this 
 spelling in native words: i'A, (beside gii) ; iung(B,-e ; 
 iugupe ; ioc, loc ; '■lard' {olim). Brown comments, "This 
 lack of pal. infl. seems to be a general characteristic of 
 Mercian." His statement is based on the usual interpre- 
 tation of the z'-spelling, as equivalent to / simply, whereas 
 it represents the glide as well as the consonant. The form 
 ^lard' here attracts attention. It is hardly to be supposed 
 that the West Germanic a remains in this word, which 
 must be the case if the initial i merely represents /. The 
 form is plainly equivalent to West Saxon gedra, which 
 the scribe has thus rendered owing to his frequent use of i. 
 The form ioc must also plainly be equivalent to *gidc. 
 
6o Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 geoc. Both forms are due to widening of the mouth-orifice, 
 as explained above. They will be treated more fully under 
 the head of West Saxon. 
 
 A further proof of the use of i as a diphthongal element 
 appears in the substitution of it for g in words from the 
 stem gearw- ( < *garw-). The forms (§ 5, b) are iarwan^ 
 tare, iara, ge- iarwad, ge- larwad, larward \-wad ] , 
 larwede, beside gearwe, gearw(sp, foregearwep, gearwige, 
 -op, gearwadun, -«, gegearwezd, gearo, gearwunga, and 
 one anomalous case, gezrwende. Brown assumes retention 
 of a before rw in these cases. Other forms in point are 
 arwunga, spearwas, excluding naarwe, which seems cer- 
 tainly a case of " Dehnung des a oder verschriebung." 
 Biilbring (§ 132) includes rw as one of the combinations 
 causing retention of a, instancing sarwo beside searu in 
 corpus, sparuua in Epinal and Erfurt beside spearwa in 
 corpus, sarwa (nom. pi.) and he sarwdp in the Harleian 
 Glossary ; also " ahnlich ist in Ru.* a . . . erhalten . . . 
 oft vor rw : arwunga 'umsoust', iarwian <rearwian 'berei- 
 ten.' " It will be noted that the examples are very few 
 and scattered, and that the greater number are confined 
 to the Glossaries, where the orthographic conditions are 
 uncertain, and are there contradicted by variants with 
 the diphthong ; further, moreover, the assumed frequency 
 of the occurrence of a in RushworM depends only on 
 arwunga and the group of forms of the single word, 
 gearwian, in question. It seems scarcely possible under 
 these circumstances to assume of the large number of 
 forms with the spelling iarw-, beside the equally large 
 group with the spelling gearw, that the latter has the 
 breaking and the former not. Furthermore, on such a 
 supposition, it is not plain why g is used with precise dis- 
 crimination in the one case and the i in the other. If 
 the initial sound is the same why should not the g 
 appear in the group assumed to have i ? Further, if the 
 
Mercian. 6i 
 
 £ has become so palatal as to be represented by t, why should 
 the z appear precisely where, according to the hypothesis, 
 the original guttural a remains in place of a vowel capable 
 of causing the palatalization of the original ^ ? 
 
 Granting the force of these objections, it may still per- 
 haps be questioned whether the ge- of the forms of the 
 gearw- type may not be regarded as a sound approximately 
 y, and all these forms be looked upon as having original 
 a. The diflSculty here is that there is no evidence that the 
 combination is established as a symbol with such a value 
 in the text. It certainly does not represent / simply in 
 geatt (-), and in the cases with/ it is present only in geond, 
 begeonda. Further, the same objection holds here, that an 
 ultra-palatal spirant has to be assumed before a, that is in 
 a position where one has the least right to expect it. 
 
 Finally, as regards the use of the z, the significance of its 
 appearance in ' lara^ and in ioe must be considered, where 
 it cannot represent simple/ 
 
 In view of these various considerations, the spelling with 
 i must be regarded as equivalent to that with ge. These 
 forms accordingly confirm the view that initial i connotes 
 a consonantal and diphthongal element. 
 
 Ge occurs in geond^ begeonda. 
 
 G is found in gi^ pronoun and conjunction, and in gin. 
 The adverb gi appears in the form '^<^', presumably by 
 substitution of the more open sound & for ^, owing to 
 lack of stress. 
 
 Conditions as regards/ are, in brief, the same as in the 
 texts already examined, except for the more frequent use 
 of i in native words. 
 
 3. The Glossaries. 
 
 Dieter notes (§ 37) that in ^z«a/ palatal diphthongiza- 
 tion appears only in unaccented syllables.' 
 
 '^A.s in birciae, fraetgengian, ^tc. The j in these cases is usually re- 
 garded as merely a sign of I, g: So, for example, Chadwick (p. 228, 
 
63 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 In regard to certain forms of gafol {geabuli, geabules of 
 Corpus, beside gaebuli, gebil, gebles of Epinal, Erfuri), 
 Chadwick (p. 237, note) remarks that they may possibly be 
 explained as examples of u-o umlaut, " but it is more prob- 
 able on the whole that geabuli is due to palatal diphthong- 
 ization ; the inflexion would regularly be *gabl, *gcBblezs, 
 etc. ; this has been levelled out by the transformation of 
 ^gabl to */aW (whence geabul) etc." This conclusion 
 does not recommend itself. The word would not regu- 
 larly syncopate, as Chadwick assumes. Further it would 
 be isolated as a case of palatal diphthongization after c^g 
 (compare, e. g. bigaet). Moreover, the word is undiph- 
 thongized in West Saxon. 
 
 Exception must be taken to Chadwick's list of cases of 
 palatal diphthongization (p. 238). It inclndes uuzdngscea- 
 dan = piraticum in Epinal, -sceadae in Erfurt, -scedpan 
 in Corpus ; sceab- in all three ; sceadu in Epinal and Erfurt, 
 sceadugeardas in Erfurt, scaedugeardas in Epinal beside 
 scadu, sceadugeardas in Corpus. These are rather to be 
 viewed as cases of u-o umlaut. With all due allowance for 
 dialectal difference, absence of diphthongization in the 
 Psalter is to be taken into account. Chadwick's view is 
 contradicted by the general absence of diphthongization of 
 palatal vowels, which is lacking even after sc, e. g. scaet in 
 Epinal and Corpus, scaed, scaer {vomer) in Corpus. More- 
 over all the forms contain the requisite conditions for u-o 
 umlaut. 
 
 note), " the i is probably used simply to denote the palatal value of -g-, 
 -C-. That it cannot be compared with O. Sax. -i- from Germ, -j- (after 
 geminated consonants) is clear from its use in the last syllable of Ep. 
 gimaengiungiae." This single example, with its possibility of scribal 
 repetition, does not justify so sweeping a conclusion. Retention of/, i, 
 as a spoken element after the k, g, r, is simply due to the character of 
 the consonant. It is not plain how the e of stycce, here, can be regarded 
 as other than a remnant of the original /. Why else should not stycce 
 be sty CO? 
 
Mercian. 63 
 
 Their relation to general conditions as regards u-o umlaut 
 demands consideration. U-o umlaut of a is rare, but an 
 array of cases appears in Corpus, and evidences of it appear 
 elsewhere. Chadwick (pp. 226 fif.) notes hreathamus in 
 Epinal and Erfurt, hreadaemus in Epinal, hreadam's in 
 Erfurt, commenting that the word is obscure, and the ea 
 possibly ^a. Greater importance, he considers, is to be 
 attached to certain forms with ae, possibly derived from 
 (za by palatal umlaut, as in the numerous cases in the 
 Psalter. These forms are haeguthorn {Epinat), hagudorn, 
 heguthorn (Erfurt), kea{go)porn, haeguporn {Corpus) ; 
 braedlaestu aesc (dalaturae : Erfut £), braadlastgcus {Cor- 
 pus) ; sl^gu (lihargum : Epinat), slczgu {Erfurt), slaegu 
 {Corpus). The last two are dubious and may be set aside. 
 The forms of haeguthorn may be due, he remarks, to con- 
 fusion of hagu- and haeg-, the latter appearing, in other 
 texts, in heegporn, and in hcsgstald beside hagustald. Cor- 
 pus has ka{e)ca {pessul), borpdeaca, cleadur (obscure form) 
 beside Epinal, Erfurt haca, bordpeaca (also Epinal boro- 
 haca, etc., Erfurt brodthaca, etc.), Epinal claedur, Erfurt 
 cledr. In Corpus alone occur reaguUnc, onseacon, wcs{g)n- 
 fearu, geaduling, weagat, geuue{add), aslaecadun, nae(ia)d 
 tunge, hlaegulendi, rcBgu. HcBra {Erfurt) may be added 
 (Biilbring, Elementarbuch, § 229.3) ; ^ci^^o, also cited by 
 Biilbring, cannot be included with absolute confidence on 
 account of the forms with eo in Erjurt and Corpus (see 
 Chadwick, p. 195, note). 
 
 The evidence is plainly perplexing, but there is possibly 
 an element of error in Chadwick's view of it, the removal 
 of which may serve to obviate the chief difficulties. He 
 regards ae, wherever it occurs, as always due to palatal 
 umlaut. But this is not necessarily the case ; the ae may 
 be merely an inceptive stage of the umlaut. Thus, beside 
 haeguthorn, etc., with g, claedur {cledr), haera, baesoif) 
 appear in Epinal and Erfurt ; the cs in the latter cases is 
 
64 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 not due to palatal umlaut, and there is no necessity for 
 viewing the ez of haeguthorn, etc., as due to that influ- 
 ence, even though before g — it may, in all the cases, 
 simply indicate inception of u-o umlaut. So interpreted, 
 the difliculty is quite removed, which Chadwick points 
 out, that " the existence of haegu- beside such forms as 
 (Ep. 629) ragu would seem to show that there were 
 dialectic differences in the sources of Archetype I; yet 
 for such a hypothesis there is otherwise surprisingly 
 little evidence." These forms, if the umlaut is indicated 
 merely in its inceptive stages in Epinal and Erfurt^ might 
 readily occur beside one another. As regards Corpus^ 
 however, a different view must be taken, for the reason 
 that CB^ except in hraepemus, occurs only before k^ g, and 
 because of numerous cases with ce, namely reagu-, hea{go) 
 porn, bordpaca, onseacon, weagat^ cleadur, geabuH, geadu- 
 ling, geuue (add), ■waeg{n)/earu, beside raegu, haeguporn, 
 aslaecadun, naec{a)d tunge, hlaegulendi. This would indi- 
 cate that palatal umlaut is at work, a conclusion which is 
 in conformity with the usual view of the relations, dialec- 
 tal and chronologic, of this text to the Psalter. In the 
 Corpus, palatal umlaut of the diphthong is in its inception ; 
 in the Psalter, it is carried out with consistency. Essential 
 dialectal difference in this regard need not be assumed ; in 
 particular, it is not necessary to suppose with Chadwick 
 that the forms with ae in Corpus were copied from earlier 
 texts, in which a before k, g, was treated as in the Psalter. 
 On the other hand, the relation of Corpus to Epinal and 
 Erfurt is consistent. In Epinal and Erfurt, if ae is not 
 regarded as palatal umlaut, but an inceptive stage of the 
 diphthong, its occurrence beside unaffected a is explained 
 (as in haca, etc.), and the usual view, that Epinal and 
 Erfurt show the affection in its inception, appears as the 
 correct one. That Epinal should show palatal umlaut, 
 considering its date, is, it may be added, not conceivable. 
 
Mercian. 65 
 
 U-o umlaut, then, inceptive in Epinal and Erfurt., is 
 carried out through a wider range in the later Corpus. 
 
 Conditions as regards e and i do not contradict this. It 
 might be expected that, if Epinal and Erfurt show affec- 
 tion of «, even if only in the stage cb for the most part, 
 that the affection should evidence itself in e and i. But 
 in the case of these vowels, a question of orthography is 
 involved. The diphthong of e and i {eo, to), consisting 
 in its early stages of e, «, followed by a glide, could be 
 quite adequately represented simply by e, i [geolu, geholu, 
 the single example with eo is not clear). Where however, 
 there is a distinct change of vowel, as in ae for a, the scribe 
 must take account of it. This he also has to do — a 
 fact that proves u-o umlaut of e, i — in cases in which weo^ 
 wio has changed to wu., as in uusend, uudubil, sin-uurbul, 
 uuluc (also, possibly, u(u)slucreud ; compare Chadwick, p. 
 226) in Epinal ; also wy, as presumptively from wio-, in 
 uuylucscel, uuydublindiz, uuydumer.^ 
 
 The conclusion reached in regard to the affection of a 
 has a bearing upon the cases regarded by Chadwick as ex- 
 hibiting palatal diphthongization. Reasons have been 
 given for considering them rather cases of u-o umlaut. In 
 the light of the evidence that u-o umlaut was in its incep- 
 tive stage in Epinal and Erfurt, these forms assume 
 a special significance. They are all cases with initial sc, 
 and it may be argued that sk has exercised here the same 
 permissive or auxiliary influence as was argued in the case 
 of Northumbrian in these words, that is, the u-o umlaut 
 has produced a diphthong, where, in other words, the affec- 
 tion has only reached the ez stage. Indeed, here, the cb re- 
 mains in one case, scaedugeardas (beside sceadu) of Epinal, 
 which it is not necessary to explain, with Chadwick, as a 
 substitution of a form with (b ( < « in a closed syllable) 
 
 1 Cited by Chadwick, p. 226 ; he is not responsible for my explanation 
 of the Tvy as from wio. 
 
66 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 from *skcsdwa. The scadu of Corpus^ beside sceadugear- 
 das, is a scribal error or an archaism. 
 
 It will be remarked that a certain degree of palatal 
 quality or weakening of guttural quality is indicated by 
 this permissive or auxiliary influence of sk. Theoretically, 
 it should have possessed such a quality at this time, and 
 for the Corpus^ at least, sc is demonstrated by the familiar 
 fact (Dieter, § 45), that si appears with c inserted in scldi, 
 asclaecadun, asclacade. That it should possess the requi- 
 site quality to permit or aid the development of the full 
 diphthong in conjunction with u-o umlaut, and yet not 
 cause diphthongization of palatal vowels, need occasion no 
 question. The case is closely comparable with g in the 
 Ritual^ which assists in an exceptional u-o umlaut of a {(b\ 
 but without producing diphthongization of secondary pala- 
 tals — or in Lindis/arne, where palatal diphthongization 
 due simply to g is sporadic and dates from a period much 
 later than the diphthongization resulting from cooperation 
 with u-o umlaut. The diphthongization of guttural vowels 
 by j^, judging from the Aelfredian texts and on the basis 
 of the assumed approximate date of that affection as ruling 
 for all dialects, could not be expected in these texts, and it 
 is not surprising not to find it in the Psalter. In Rush- 
 worthf-, it might certainly be expected, but, as pointed out 
 above, a special influence is to be assumed for its absence. 
 
 The testimony of these texts is then as follows. Diph- 
 thongization of palatal vowels does not occur. This is to 
 be referred to the same cause as that suggested for the 
 Psalter — the ez had reached a more advanced palatal stage 
 than the cb of Northumbrian (indicated by variation be- 
 tween ae and ^) and therefore shared with e an immunity 
 to diphthongization, even after sk. In Erfurt and Epinal, 
 where u-o umlaut is inceptive, the vowel a passes beyond 
 the es stage in a few cases through the permissive or auxil- 
 iary influence of initial g, sk. 
 
Mercian. 67 
 
 As regards j, the vowel remains unchanged in gtrlicae, 
 g^ri in Epinal^ and girlice^ pysgire in Corpus. No exam- 
 ples occur with / before guttural vowels in Epinal or 
 Erfurt. In Corpus.^ j appears before guttural vowels in 
 geocboga^geocstecca, geondsmead, and presumably giululing 
 {quintus). These examples call for no comment except to 
 note that they illustrate the fact that the development after 
 y was the same in all dialects. 
 
IV. 
 KENTISH. 
 
 The texts used are the Charters in De Gray Birch, Car- 
 tularium Saxonicum, London, 1885-1887, as analyzed 
 grammatically by Wolff, Untersuchung der Laute in den 
 kentischen Urkunden, Heidelberg, 1893, which contains 
 also references to the ^oth Psalm, Hymn, and Glosses of 
 Cod. Coit. Vesp. D. VI. The mixed and dubious charac- 
 ter of the Charters is well known ; they aflFord, however, 
 the only early material available. Wolff distinguishes four 
 groups : (A) pure Kentish ; (B. i) Mercian-Kentish ; (B. 2) 
 Saxon-Kentish ; (C. i) documents of Sun'ey ; (C. 2) docu- 
 ments of Surrey and Kent, which are possibly Kentish. 
 
 A remains (examples with pre-nasal a are not included) 
 in : {^P^-gate (§ 7 ; add 272.14) ; gatum (for 317.17, read 
 273.9 ) ^^^° omit '■caping^ perverted form of c^apung) ; 
 (B. i) gegaderod (§ 2) ; (B. 2) gafole (§ 2) ; gatan ; (C. i) 
 shal (§ 7) ; parkesgate ; gate^. 
 
 A becomes ts, e, remaining undiphthongized in : (A) 
 ccBstruuara (§ 2; 282.17, incorrectly cited in §7); Ccbs- 
 truuarouualth (§ 7); sccet ; begcBt i^or 583.16, read 15); 
 forg(^f {^dz.x^, ; not cited) ; cestre (337.27 not cited) ; seel ; 
 forge/ {% 29; not cited in § 7)'. (B. i) -cesster ; Ccester-; 
 -cester; (B. 2) scesl; cestre ; (C. 2) -caestre. 
 
 1 Wolff has not been at pains to indicate that the forms in C. I , in a docu- 
 ment dated in his preface 67S, stand in a late addition, as the forms 
 show ; just above them occurs the name "Sire Geffreus Hej>e de la Croix. ' ' 
 So similarly p. 52, " In den XJrkunden kommt keine Abweichung von d 
 vor, ausser in C. i." These abweichungen are in this same document 
 and are stone, one, choten. He also forgets that he has noted what he 
 assumes are three cases of ^a from A a.i\sx g. 
 
 * Omit under \ 7, Cent, Caent (C. 2) ; Riperscaepe {ior -dape) ; gefe 
 (dat.). 
 
 (68) 
 
Kentish. 69 
 
 The <^, e, by t-umlsLUt from a remains undiplithongized, 
 except 'va.for]>gesceaft (as in West Saxon) of the Psalm. 
 
 Ea results from ce in (A) -geate (§ 7), geat (7.28, cited as 
 geate ; beside gate^gatum^ four cases); ongean^. (B. 2) geat, 
 geate (§ 7, beside gaian two cases); ongcB-n (II. 132.13, not 
 cited) ; {Hymn) ceastre ; {Gloss., p. 7) " es zeigt sich nie ea 
 durch Einfluss eines vorhergehenden g oder sc." 
 
 E is not diphthongized : (A) agefe (§ 15), agefen., agebe ; 
 geld {Felogyldus, 403.26, a I^atinized form, is not signifi- 
 cant); gaefe, agafe; gef e (tbiee cases also cited under a 
 after a palatal, § 7); (B. -L)-geld ; -gete; (C. 2) -get; -geld; 
 {Psalm) -gef-; {Gloss., p. 4) "stets <?." 
 
 I^ong vowels are not diphthongized. Of i (West Ger- 
 manic i), the following examples occur : (A) scip (§ 39), 
 scisp (-) ; cises., cess-, cyses. From the document in which 
 the last form appears (II. 107.2, dated 860), WolflF should 
 also have quoted agy/e (II. 106.3, ^°7-3)) ^£^if^ (^I- io7-i9) 
 21). Special mention is made of these forms here as 
 pointing to an interesting form in No. 463 (I. 560), appar- 
 ently, in part at least, an earlier form of this document. 
 It is dated 831,832, but with the exception of a clause 
 between the first and second paragraphs, it would appear 
 to belong to the 8th century. The form of particular 
 interest is agiaban (560.8), classed by Wolff (§ 19), no 
 doubt correctly, as a case of u-o umlaut. 
 
 The cases of sc before gutturals are as follows (the exam- 
 ples are gathered passim; this category is not specially 
 discriminated by Wolff) : before «, (A) scaga (§ 7) ; (B. i) 
 Scaga (beside Sceagd); {Psalm) scame; before d (A) ^as- 
 ceaden'' (§ 46); (B. i) '•sceade''; (B. 2) '■gesceade'' ; {Gloss : d) 
 "nach sc bleibt a in alien vorkommenden V2X^ers.: gescaddp 
 246, toscad u^^, gescad 1164"; before o, in default of an 
 
 1 Omit Rytherciap and the Middle Englisli Rouesdesire, plainly a late 
 addition. This single form is entered doubly 88.7 (88th document, 7th, 
 line), 124.28 (p. 124, 1. 28). 
 
70 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 example with o in an accented syllable, (A) -biscop (-) 
 (§ 12); -episcop; (B. i) bisceopesporn (§ 29); bisceopincg 
 dene (519.6: in the same document as the preceding exam- 
 ple) ; before ^, (A) scora (§ 42); before «, (A) scufeling (§ 33). 
 
 The testimony with regard to c and ^ is, it will be per- 
 ceived, meagre and unsatisfactory. Yet it is perhaps suf- 
 ficient to show that diphthongization was not a feature of 
 Kentish. Ceaster occurs uniformly with <^, e (except in 
 the loth century Hymn); begtst, siadi forges/ occur in 9th 
 century documents ; and two cases of geat occur without 
 diphthongization in a grant of Aethelberht, dated 605. 
 
 Beside these two cases, two occur with the diphthong 
 {supgeate, bradgeate) in an alleged document of Aethel- 
 berht^ dated 604 (p. 7). The only English in this docu- 
 ment runs as follows : " Hie est terminus mei doni : fram 
 su])geate west andlanges weallas o]j norjjlanan to strsete & 
 swa east fram straete o]? doddinghyran ongean bradgeat." 
 This passage can hardly be of the date set. The grant, as 
 a whole, must be considered dubious, as differing from 
 others of the same king and year. There is no signa- 
 tory clause for the king as in two, and in all the others 
 the witnesses sign or (in one) are mentioned by name, 
 while this closes, " Hoc cum consilio Laurencii episcopi et 
 omnium principum meorum signo sanctae crucis confirm- 
 ari, eosque jussi ut mecum idem facerent. Amen." The 
 signature is lacking; the boundaries are, in the others, 
 given in I^atin ; in general there is a marked difference in 
 style. It may also be noted, for what it is worth, that the 
 king's name is spelled Aethelberht.^ while in the others it 
 is spelled Aethilberht. 
 
 The testimony in regard to sc before gutturals does not 
 afford results of a positive character. The forms in A, 
 scaga^ ascedden (or asciadeti)^ -biscop {-episcop)^ scbra, scufel- 
 ing, show a glide only in ascedden (or asciaden), which 
 belongs to the second half of the 9th century and may be 
 
Kentish. 71 
 
 a West Saxon form. The Gloss shows no glide in this 
 word. The Mercian-Kentish group show a form Sceaga 
 (258.26, dated 755) beside Scaga (358.28, dated 789); 
 scddan has the diphthong in ^sceadep^ (467.38, dated 811); 
 two cases of bisceop also show the glide (518.43, 519.6, 
 dated 824). The group, B. 2, also has a form '■gesceadep.^ 
 The question of the genuineness of the charters, the 
 accuracy of the dates, the possibility of West Saxon influ- 
 ence in the 9th century and of Mercian before, together 
 with the sporadic nature of the affection, even in West 
 Saxon, up to the close of the 9th century, render the evi- 
 dence uncertain and valueless. The form Sceaga in the 
 Mercian-Kentish group, while theoretically possible at the' 
 date assigned for the document, 755, though somewhat 
 early, is in the highest degree unlikely. 
 
 The cases with /, aside from certain quasi-I^atinized 
 proper names (in A) Jaenberhtus, Jaemberhti, Jambertus 
 (§ 7); in B^ Jaenbeorhtus (§ 16), Jaegnlaad {% 7), with an 
 anomalous Gaenbald in A, are few. 
 
 Before m, the following cases occur : (A) Godgeocesham 
 (§ 60); gioc; iocled {% 33); iocleta II. 158.6; (B. 1) geoded; 
 ioclet. Wolff says (§ 60), "Vor dunkelen Vokalen er- 
 scheint in den Urkunden nur ganz selten ein e; die weni- 
 gen Falle sind : gioc (aus juk) .... Godgeocesham." 
 The additional cases in § 33 he does not cite here ; at that 
 place he speaks of them as "undiphthongiert." Accord- 
 ing to the view urged above, the / connotes a diphthongal 
 element. 
 
 Wolff also does not cite m § 60 the forms in the Gloss 
 cited under § 33 : " 'giogejje . gioh])hade . gionne ; geo- 
 kommt so nicht vor. wohl aber steht iunges.' (p. 8)." 
 
 G&ar appears in A (§ 39) as gire 560.7 etc.; and in a 
 late grant (II. 107.19,20 as giare (2) beside gire (2). 
 The regular Kentish form was presumably gir, and the 
 forms in this grant are a mixture of Kentish and West 
 
72 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 Saxon, or are entirely West Saxon, the form £;ire being 
 due to monophthongization. Further comment is unnec- 
 essary. It may be safely assumed that diphthongization 
 was not native to Kentish, and it is probable that diph- 
 thongization of gutturals had made no great advances 
 during the greater part of the 9th century, as it did not in 
 West Saxon according to the evidence of the Aelfredian 
 texts. The question whether the scanty evidence the texts 
 afford is trustworthy is also to be kept in mind. It is 
 highly unlikely that the Charters represent vernacular 
 conditions, owing to Mercian and West Saxon influence. 
 Further, there was widespread sophistication of the early 
 charters. The testimony of this material must unfor- 
 tunately always be under suspicion'. 
 
 'Since the above was written, Chadwick has commented upon this 
 point (p. 182). Noting the marked differences between the earlier and 
 later charters, he is inclined to assume Mercian influence until 823, and 
 then a renascence of the native dialect, which accordingly appears in the 
 charters after that time. This, he says, shows affinities with the West 
 Saxon. He does not apparently consider that West Saxon influence 
 must have succeeded the Mercian after the time of the Mercian down- 
 fall. This language of the charters in this later period would seem much 
 rather to represent West Saxon and native conditions mixed, just as that 
 of the previous period represents Mercian and native conditions mixed. 
 
V. 
 WEST SAXON. 
 
 The texts are those used by Cosijn in his Altwestsiichsische 
 Grammatik, Haag, 1888, namely the Cur a Pas tor alts, 
 Orosius and Chronicle^. 
 
 A remains (pp. 1-4) in gafol; cam (cf. cearu^ p. 12); 
 gatu (3 ; Chron.)] calendas ; landscare (ace. sing.), scare 
 {Chronicle, 716) ; {ge)gaderian, gaderap, {ge)gadrian; 
 gecafstrod; carcern, karkern (-with cearcern, p. 12, by 
 breaking); carbunculus. 
 
 Of cases in which cb is retained after palatals, Cosijn 
 says (p. 5): "Nach palatalen erscheint ea, ausgenommen 
 ist scael (debeo) 062.9. 0100.15. sonst sceal" (but note also 
 sc(l 0246.27. cited p. 13 under examples of e, ts, <?, for ea 
 by 'breaking' and II. p. 196); (p. 6) " Gcb [vor einfachem 
 consonanten + e\ begegnet nur in gaedera]) (colligit) 463.34, 
 sonst gaderian, aber constant setgseddre 457.15.= setgsedere 
 090.8. 0132.2. etc. und togaedre 08.11,13. 0102.31. = togse- 
 dere passim im Orosius" ; (p. 7) " G<z [vor doppelten oder 
 mehrfachem consonanten, ausser h oder liquida + cons.j 
 findet sich nur in gcBglbcernes 73.11, also mit ce aus az?" 
 (the ae is presumably late <s due to a variant *gagi-)- 
 
 Secondary palatal vowels are not diphthongized except 
 in a few cases after sc, treated below. It is unnecessary 
 to cite the cases in which ea is due to breaking. 
 
 y^ from a becomes ea by palatal diphthongization, with 
 
 ^ where necessary, Cosijn's ingeniously brief system of notation is 
 employed ; the Cura Pasioralis is cited by number, the Orosius by a 
 cipher prefixed to the number, and the Chronicle by name. Citations 
 from the grammar are to the first part and are made usually by the page, 
 because of the length of the paragraphs. It will not generally be neces- 
 sary to indicate correspondences of the texts of the Cura Pastoralis; 
 differences will be indicated when important. 
 
 (73) 
 
74 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 a few cases of e by monoplitliongization, in the following : 
 sceapen (p. i); sceade (p. 2); geof (p- 7), beside yor^^ (p. 
 13); begeat (p. 7) beside y&r^^if, -^^^, onget (p. 13); ^^a/f^, 
 geata, geatum (p. 7); ^ea/"/ ceaster, beside cester (i ; p. 13); 
 sceabb (p. 7); jc^a/ passim, beside seel and beside j^'^/, 
 sc(l, noted above; sceat; unsceapfiill (beside unscepfullice, 
 p. 13); scearseax; ongeagn, an-, ongean, ongkan, beside 
 ongen, togeanes; scearum (p. 84); {^sceaft (discussed 
 below). Cearu (p. 12) is also to be added to this list, 
 beside cam; the form is not necessarily due as Cosijn 
 (p. 12) and Sievers (§ 103. n. 2) say to «-o umlaut, but may 
 well be due to diphthongization in the oblique cases of 
 the singular. 
 
 The cases of ie from ea by e'-umlaut are as follows (p. 34) : 
 giesphus; sciell, beside scyll; hlafardsdepe (elsewhere 
 scipe; not a true umlaut form, but simply scribal by influ- 
 ence of the verb, as -scip without doubt comes from a 
 West Germanic form with i) ; Sci{e)ppend, beside sceppend; 
 besdered; ciefes; dele, beside cele, die (p. 63). 
 
 Diphthongization of & appears in sciap; secure (pret. 
 conj.); {-)scSaren; {-) giafe h&siAe. g^fe ; -g&afon; {-)g^ate, 
 (-) giaton. Secondary & is undiphthongized in c&g (p. 85). 
 Diphthongization however appears in tosc^at (p. 106). E 
 from d by umlaut (p. 63) is not diphthongized in kUnes, 
 gecHan. 
 
 The cases with unaffected a after c, g, include the loan- 
 words carcern, which preserves its a beside a less frequent 
 form with breaking, and the later gecafstrod, carbunculus, 
 which entered the language too late for either breaking or 
 palatal influence. Gecafstrod is apparently a variant unaf- 
 fected by e'-umlaut, beside ccBfester of the Epinal. Gafol 
 and the forms from the stem gadr- show no diphthongiza- 
 tion in contrast with the Ritual and Lindisfarne. 
 
 The cases of diphthongization of cb, &, except for sceel, 
 scil, (-) sceaft, referred to below, do not call for comment. 
 
West Saxon. 75 
 
 Similarly, the cases of te from ea by ^-umlaut are uniform 
 and regular, except cele and sceppend, which are treated 
 below. That diphthongization took place in West Saxon 
 prior to z-umlaut seems reasonably certain. Sceppend and cele 
 with scellaxe. cited by Biilbring {Elementarbuch § 181, note) 
 as forms illustrative of a group of exceptions without ie^ 
 which with cases of undiphthongized «£■, <^, in the Harleian 
 Gloss and elsewhere, afford evidence of the existence of a 
 patois in West Saxon. The general subject is examined 
 below in connection with the forms having sc. 
 
 The conditions under which diphthongization after sc 
 occurs are here, as elsewhere, of special interest and impor- 
 tance. The cases fall into three groups according as the sk 
 was followed (I) by primary cs^ & ; (II) by a secondary 
 palatal vowel ; (III) by a guttural vowel. Use is here 
 made of Rehm's Palatisierung der Gruppe '■sc\ in which 
 the forms in a number of representative West Saxon texts 
 (the Cura Pastoralis, Bede, Blickling Homilies^ Aelfric's 
 Homilies.^ Grammar, and Pentateuch, and the Gospels) are 
 given in detail. 
 
 I. Diphthongization of ^ < « in open syllables, followed 
 by a palatal vowel (§ i. b), is uniform. The Cura Pasto- 
 ralis has sceare (pres. conj.), gesceapen (10); the a of 
 landscare is due to forms with a guttural vowel in the 
 second element. Bede has gesceapen (10) beside the 
 erroneous or Mercian form gescepen; sceare (14) from scearu 
 beside scare (2); scafe from sceafan, pointing to a form 
 scafan (compare scafepa, 2 cases). The Blickling Homilies 
 have gesceapen. Aelfric's Homilies have gesceape, gescea- 
 pen (74). The Grammar has sceace (6) beside sccece (10), 
 excutio, with cs from the 2d and 3d persons, scace; gescea- 
 pen (26) with gescapena in O. The Pentateuch has ascea- 
 cen; gesceapenis, gesceapen ; sceare. 
 
 The examples of cb in closed syllables, as given by 
 Rehm (§ i. c) contain a number of forms that properly 
 
76 Palatalizalion in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 belong elsewhere. The few clear examples are sceabb, 
 sceat{£) in Cur a Pastor alis; orsceattinga in Bede; sceatt in 
 the Blickling Homilies ; sceadwung, sceadwian, sceatt, in 
 Aelfric's Homilies; sceatt (scett by monophthongization) 
 in the Pentateuch ; sceadwian in the Gospels. Sceafpa in 
 Bede, beside scaefpa, scefpa, is possibly an umlaut form, 
 with post-umlaut diphthongization, and will be discussed 
 later. Sccscdom, in the Pentateuch, is, according to Skeat 
 {Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, s. v.) for scecdom. The special 
 forms (-) sceaft, -sceap- (in unsceap/ullice, etc.), sccel, sc^l, 
 seel, scall, beside sceal, axe. discussed below. 
 
 In this first group belong the examples of pre-umlaut ea 
 affected to ie by i^umlaut. Rehm's list (§ i. f.) includes 
 many (e. g. those having pre-nasal a) to be treated sepa- 
 rately. Apart from these, the examples include scieppend, 
 scippend, sciell, gesciered, in Cura Pastoralis ; scyrian, 
 scerian, scyppend, sceppend, scyll, scyru, sceppan and com- 
 pounds, scceppan and compounds (with sceappiendrd), in 
 Bede; scylfring, scyppend, sceppend, scyrian, sceppan, in 
 the Blickling Homilies; unsceappig beside scaeppig and 
 compounds, scyppan, scyppend, scyrian in Aelfric's Hom- 
 ilies ; scyppan, scyppend beside sceppan, scyll, scyran, 
 sceappig beside sceppig, scezppig, in the Grammar; scilla, 
 sciran, scippend, in the Pentateuch; stanscylig, sciran, 
 in the Gospels^. 
 
 The variation between ie, y, and e, (b, is significant. It 
 may be treated more conveniently in connexion with the 
 general development of sc. 
 
 In Rehm's texts, only one case of & (West Germanic d) 
 occurs, namely sciap in the Cura Pastoralis. Besc^aren 
 in Orosius, 204.8, may also be cited. 
 
 II. The group of forms with diphthongization of secon- 
 dary palatals after sk is of special interest. The cases (in- 
 
 •Why Rehm should have included {ge)scierpan, scylcen, scentul in 
 his list is not apparent. 
 
West Saxon. 77 
 
 eluding those given by Biilbring, Elementarbuch., §§ 288 
 ff.) may be conveniently divided as follows : 
 
 1. (a) ^a < <:f < a by umlaut : (-) sceaft beside (-) sccsft^ 
 (-) sceappig beside (-) scezppig (ib. § 393 b) ; sceapian beside 
 sceppan ; sceafpa beside scesfpa, scafpa. (b) ^a < ^ < a by 
 umlaut : sctap beside sc&p., ' sheath' (ib. § 293), scianan 
 beside scSnan (ib.), tosciat, and ^^ssihly gesciad (-) beside 
 gescdd (-). 
 
 2. (a) ie < ^ < « by umlaut : sciendan {sc^ndan, sctn- 
 dan) beside scendan. (b) y <i ie <, i <, <s <. 6 hy um- 
 laut : gescy (ib. §291). 
 
 These examples afford satisfactory evidence of diph- 
 thongization after sc subsequent to z-umlaut, though one 
 or two are dubious, and though the conditions in the sev- 
 eral cases are not the same and demand separate examina- 
 tion. 
 
 Biilbring, in accordance with the usual view, does not 
 admit (-) sceaft among his examples under this category in 
 his Elementarbuch, treating it as a case of the usual diph- 
 thongization of ce (ib. 152, note), though at one time he 
 entertained the view that the word, at least in Northum- 
 brian, had undergone umlaut {Anglia Beiblatt^ 9,77)- He 
 recognizes the possibility of the retention of a before 7? (cf. 
 Elemeniarbuch, § 127, " Belege fur erhaltenes a vor sp und 
 ft fehlen zufallig "), but was probably influenced by his 
 view regarding the absence of diphthongization in the 
 special patois, which he assumes (cf. ib. § 152, note). The 
 question whether or no the word was umlauted turns on 
 the view taken of the retention of ez in words in which a 
 consonant-combination stood between the stem-vowel and 
 the umlauting element. Sievers's view (§ 89.2) is that the 
 stem-vowel had become ce and that this es was unaffected 
 by the umlaut. Biilbring notes (§ 169, note) that the ex- 
 planation of the retention of <s is still dubious, and remarks 
 that, whether or no ^ or ^ is the normal development. 
 
78 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 levelling from associated forms must be assumed (cf. also 
 Anglia Beiblati, 9)93)- Chadwick's view {Studies in Old 
 English., p. 155) is that the cb may be quite regular here ; 
 that only guttural and semi-palatal vowels seem to have 
 been affected by e'-umlaut ; that the 'absence' of umlaut in 
 d&d., l&cCy etc., and /esstan, etc. may be due to the fact 
 that cs, & were so far palatal as to prevent the operation of 
 /-umlaut. " It is quite conceivable," he says, " that, at 
 the time when e'-umlaut began to operate, the vocalism of 
 Germ, ^fastian^ etc. had become identical in quality with 
 that of *dedi-z ; for since the palatalization of -a- took place 
 both in open syllables before -i- (e. g. in '^mcsti < *mati-z), 
 and in close syllables (e. g. in dtzg), it is likely enough 
 that when both conditions were present, as here, the pala- 
 talization proceeded still further." It is hardly possible 
 to accept this hypothesis of an ^ of extreme palatal value 
 not assimilated in other respects to the ?', namely to an 
 ^-grade ; it is not clear under such an assumption how ez 
 in any case became e by umlaut, as it must have passed 
 through a range of <^'s of varying grades, and, according to 
 Chadwick's assumption, the affection would have ceased 
 on reaching a certain grade, as being too palatal for the 
 vowel to be farther affected. 
 
 A point in Chadwick's argument may be touched upon 
 briefly before pursuing the subject immediately in hand. 
 He says it will be noticed that the tz of fcestnian, etc., may 
 have been, like the & of d(zd, iSce, etc., so far palatal as to 
 prevent /-umlaut — that is, he regards this^ (< West Ger- 
 manic d) as ultra-palatal, and therefore immune. On what 
 grounds? Presumably because West Germanic d has 
 changed pretty much everywhere to &, apparently irre- 
 spective of position. But this does not prove it ultra- 
 palatal, rather the contrary, for it is not probable that a 
 vowel originally not palatal would become ultra-palatal 
 irrespective of position. Some special cause must be dis- 
 
West Saxon. 79 
 
 covered for this general change to palatal quality. The 
 current view is that held by Biilbring {Elementarbuch., 
 § 129 ; and compare also Sievers, § 57.2, note 3, both based 
 on Kluge, Anglia Am. 5, 82), namely that this A re- 
 mains normally before a homorganic consonant (namely a 
 guttural or labial consonant), except where analogy has 
 caused it to change to <^, but that before a dental, it 
 changes uniformly to &. This view, while stating the 
 conditions with essential correctness, seems in error in the 
 fundamental assumption involved. It assumes namely 
 that the sound (for no assigned reason) has a direct pre- 
 disposition to become ^ and does not do so, only when a 
 homorganic consonant checks the affection, the affection 
 running its course when a dental follows. But why should 
 the sound possess this disposition to become palatal ? If 
 such a disposition existed, why did not short a show it 
 also ? The preferable view should be, to avoid ungrounded 
 assumptions, that d tended to remain ^, except before a 
 non-homorganic consonant, namely a dental, and that here 
 for some reason to be ascertained, it tended to become 
 palatal. This may seem to be only a matter of form of 
 statement, but the distinction is worth making. It helps, 
 indeed, toward a discrimination of the real reason for the 
 change and for its wide extension. 
 
 The affection of ^ to ^ (the d < West Germanic d only 
 is meant, naturally) is closely comparable, and has indeed 
 been compared, to that of short a in becoming short cb. 
 It was of like kind and due to the same causes, and indeed 
 took place at approximately the same time, though pre^ 
 sumably its inception was later. A comparison of the two 
 sounds is justified. According to this view, the d would 
 become &., precisely where a becomes cb. This was the 
 case, but undoubtedly, as Kluge (Anglia., Am. 5, 2) and 
 Biilbring (1. c), pointed out, the influence of analogy has 
 to be considered, no matter what explanation is offered. 
 
8o Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 The long a obeyed the same rule as the short a's, but as it 
 happened, a large number of these long a's stood in posi- 
 tions in which they were peculiarly subject to analogy. 
 In the fourth and fifth rows, they were under the influence 
 of the preterit singular with tz and & ; in the reduplicating 
 verbs, the vowel was carried back from the weak preterits. 
 But in the case of weak nouns and of a verb like Idcnian 
 or a noun like dcumba^ in which the d is not subject to 
 such analogy, the d is preserved. In the case of strong 
 nouns, the normal & of the present was carried usually 
 through the plural, a point to which we shall revert in a 
 moment — the normal d of the plural is however sometimes 
 retained. 
 
 The point of difierence is this. Biilbring's form of 
 statement is that d is retained before a labial or velar con- 
 sonant + guttural vowel; "Dentale verhindem dagegen 
 die Wirkung, so dass vor ihnen wg. d stets in & iiberge- 
 gangen ist." There is not, however, an actual influence 
 upon the vowel ; the influence of the dental is felt only in 
 so far as it assists and ensures the influence of analogy. 
 As it is, cases with a dental occur only where the effect of 
 analogy is to be assumed. In brief, we have a phonetic 
 development precisely like that in the case of &, only 
 influenced extensively by analogy. 
 
 When now the quality of the & is considered, we have, 
 according to this view, no right to assume for it ultra- 
 palatal quality. In this relation, its length is to be con- 
 sidered. There is a disposition at present to disregard 
 length as a factor in phonetic change, and to argue that a 
 similar change may take place in a long as in a short 
 vowel. This may perhaps in individual cases be true 
 (though it is far from proved), but, if so, only in individual 
 cases. In the nature of things, the length of a vowel 
 must be an essential factor in preserving its integrity — in 
 restraining a change that would go on with greater rapidity 
 
West Saxon. 8i 
 
 in the case of a short vowel. In the present case, it may- 
 be argued accordingly that the d yielded more slowly tq 
 palatal influence than &. It did become ^, but an ^ les^ 
 palatal than the cs from short a. A proof of this may be 
 seen, indeed, in the manner in which its extension has 
 been eflFected by analogy. In the case of the short a, there, 
 was no such influence. Analogy, it must be remembered 
 is a slow process, slower than phonetic change ; it does not 
 begin to work until a condition of difference is established, 
 and then at best very slowly. In the case of the short a, 
 a marked difierence was established between the a and the 
 <^. Their main categories of occurrence were indeed 
 grammatical — the <z, for example, in the run of strong 
 nouns, belonged to the singular and the a to the plural. 
 Analogy led to their levelling only exceptionally. But 
 as argued above, the ^ was, because of its length, only 
 slightly palatal — there was less difference between it and 
 the d. As a result, analogy caused it to supplant the d, 
 especially where a non-homorganic consonant assisted the 
 extension by its preference for the ^. As a result, to take 
 the special case already referred to, it is extended into the 
 plurals of strong nouns, though here also the original d 
 sometimes remains. 
 
 The bearing of this conclusion upon the ^-umlaut of tz 
 is plain. The vowel must not be supposed to be too far 
 palatal for umlaut to work upon it. On the contrary, 
 being less palatal than the cs from short a, and further 
 being less subject to affection by reason of its length, while 
 it was undoubtedly affected by umlaut, it was not so far 
 affected as to require the resulting vowel to be orthograph- 
 ically represented by the spelling e. The sound falls in, 
 in its spelling, with the ^ from d from at and the d from 
 West Germanic d before w. 
 
 The question originally proposed was why d, followed 
 by two consonants, umlauts to ts, instead of to the e 
 6 
 
82 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 that might have been expected. An explanation may 
 be suggested, in this connection, which seems to accord 
 measurably with the facts. In the case of words in which 
 a single consonant followed ^, the & was in a closed sylla- 
 ble and became (b and, by umlaut, e, e. g. * tal'jan > * tcel' 
 Han > * tellan. The question what took place when two 
 consonants followed depends upon the nature of the com- 
 bination. But the combinations occurring in this position 
 were by origin, except in a very few cases, of a nature to 
 be tautosyllabic. Consequently, in accordance with the 
 usual partition after a short vowel, they were carried over 
 to the second syllable, in which j had become z", e. g. fa' 
 stian. The vowel was in an open syllable. Here it 
 remained as a, for its affection by the i was prevented by 
 the barrier of two consonants till late, that is, its umlaut 
 is comparable to the affection of a to ^^ by a palatal vowel 
 in the next syllable at an earlier period. It starts from an 
 aggrade and is therefore affected normally only to the 
 i^-grade. By this explanation it becomes comparable to the 
 a before nasals, which becomes cb^ being however height- 
 ened to e in the 8th century. It also becomes comparable 
 to the short and long ce^ from o, ^, which later unrounded 
 to e, ^. 
 
 If this assumed partition of syllables is correct, we 
 should find a in words with tauto syllabic combinations 
 following, where umlaut conditions are not present. Such 
 an «, of course, appears in the familiar examples cited in 
 the grammars (cf. Sievers, § lo), asce^ flasce^ wascan, wrast- 
 lian^ brastlian, etc. That examples of other combina- 
 tions than sc and st do not appear is not probably acciden- 
 tal (as Biilbring says of sp and/i, compare above). The 
 question of the syllabic partition in nouns is affected by 
 the fact that a large majority were early rendered monosyl- 
 labic in the nominative and accusative singular, or as well 
 in the nominative and accusative plural ; also, the syllabic 
 
West Saxon. 83 
 
 partition might be aflfected by the nature of the following 
 syllable ; also, levelling between noun and verb forms was 
 inevitable. Thus kts/i, monosyllabic in the nominative 
 and accusative singular, might readily have been pro- 
 nounced hcB' ftes., hce' fte^ in the oblique forms, while, in the 
 plural, hcBf las, hcef turn might have varied with hes'ftas, 
 hcef turn. 
 
 The examples of (s by umlaut before consonant groups 
 may, apparently, be satisfactorily explained in this way. 
 Sievers's list (§ 89.2 and note) is representative ; it 
 includes cases with sc {esse, ligrcBsc, pwcBscan), sp {aespe\ 
 si {/(sstan, -hlaestan, mcsstan), ft (hcBftan), fs {rcefsan ; also 
 W(zfs in which initial w is to be considered), y?? (sttzfnan), 
 etc. Over against these, e is occasionally found in efnan, 
 stefnan, and uniformly in eft, rest, restan, esne, stefn. The 
 e'va. eft may be due to the frequency of its use, and in the 
 forms withy9« to the fact that the combination is not truly 
 homorganic ; so also sn in esne and nut in stemn. Rest, 
 restan may perhaps be due to frequency of use ; the 
 appearance of e in some cases is naturally to be expected, 
 and especially in words frequently used, as frequency of 
 use would enable the operation of the umlaut to be carried 
 out. 
 
 N(Zglan owes its (s to naegl; e is to be expected before 
 this combination as in egle, eglan. Fcepman, faepmian, 
 is due to the noun. The vocalism of braegden, included 
 by Sievers, and explained by Cosijn as a case of the com- 
 bination -agdi-, is not clear. 
 
 This same principle may be applied to giest. The word 
 has always caused difficulty, chiefly as regards the initial 
 stop in Middle English, which cannot be satisfactorily 
 explained as due to ON. gestr (see guest in the N. E. D). 
 According to the explanation just made, it is possible to 
 assume a form *gast beside "^gcest. The second of these 
 affords by umlaut, through *geast the ioxm. giest ; the first 
 
84 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 gives gissi, found in the poetry, and possibly, by further 
 development of the umlaut, another variant gest (as in the 
 gesthus of Aelfric). The g of the undiphthongized forms 
 was extended to the less common forms with «>, y., whence 
 M. E. gust., gist. 
 
 Finally, this principle may be applied to the word which 
 was the starting point of the discussion, sceaft. By this 
 view, it would represent umlaut of an original ^scaft with 
 diphthongization of the secondary cb. This would remove 
 it from the group of z^tems, classed as exceptions in not 
 displaying umlaut, and bring it into line with the gesccs/i 
 of Rushworth^. It remains to be noted of {ge)sc^ft, as 
 beside {ge)sceaft., that its use is more widely extended than 
 is indicated by Biilbring's citation of the Harleian Gloss 
 {Elementarbuch, § 152, note). Rehm (p. 10) records a case 
 in the Cotton MS. of the Cura Pastoralis, gescae/t, 200.18 ; 
 also scaeft., 56.4 H, 257, I J, of Aelfric's Grammar beside 
 sceft., 56.4 in eight MSS. (presumably due to monoph- 
 thongization). This possesses some significance in con- 
 nection with the discussion of the patois below. 
 
 Biilbring's explanation of (-) sceappig beside (-) sceppig 
 (§ 178, by reference from § 293 b), to which we may also 
 add scaeppig and compounds' is plainly correct, namely that 
 the noun, scapa, precluded pre-umlaut ^skceppig with ez., or 
 continually reformed it to *skappig. Hence diphthongi- 
 zation did not take place till after umlaut. The same 
 development may be surmised in the case of sceapan, 
 sceapian, beside sceppan. These are usually explained as 
 late formations, as indeed they are, but not in the sense 
 intended. They are apparently true cases of post-umlaut 
 diphthongization, the development being *skapjan > 
 sktBppan > sceppan > sceapan., sceapian. This is proved 
 
 'See Rehm, p. 18: Aelfric's Homilies, sccEppig smA compounds I. 142.8, 
 etc., 40 cases beside unsceappig I. 142.10; Grammar, sceppig, 253.16 
 in9MSS.;ic<z'»z^ 63.15, etc., 19 cases; sceappig, 63.15 U, 253.16 W. 
 
West Saxon. 85 
 
 by the forms scaeppan and compounds in Bede (see Rehm, 
 p. 18). We may confidently argue that this sccBppan is 
 the associated variant of *sceappan^ and so add sceapan, 
 sceapian, to our list of cases of post-umlaut diphthongiza- 
 tion. 
 
 Another word which apparently belongs in this class is 
 scea/pa, sccefpa., scefpa^ in Bede., recorded by Rehm under 
 the head of a in closed syllables (p. 10) as sceafp (sic), 30.6, 
 156.6,204.32; sccsfpa, x^2,.i2,i 282.8; scefp (sic), 156.6, 
 192.13, 282.8 ; also, under the head of a in open syllables 
 (p. 6), sca/epa, 156.6, 192.13. The cases with ^, e, may be 
 explained as due to umlaut caused by a variant ending 
 -ipa, beside the -opa of scafepa., scefpa resulting from 
 *sceBfipa.i and scce/pa from *scafipa with a through influence 
 of scafopa. It becomes accordingly probable that scea/pa 
 represents post-umlaut diphthongization of sccefpa. This 
 recommends itself rather than to suppose it a syncopated 
 form of *si;ea/opa, with a glide before a due to si. 
 
 The group of forms i. b, with umlaut of d, seem to be 
 satisfactory cases of post-umlaut diphthongization. Theo- 
 retically, tosciat {Cura Pastoralis., 453-17) not recorded by 
 Rehm), beside toscdet, might owe its diphthong to forms with 
 ed from d. Gesctad (-) beside gescdd (-), has of course less 
 evidential value (cf. Biilbring, Anglia Beiblatt., 11,91)- 
 On the face of the evidence, the word would have ^ from /J, 
 and Biilbring assumes two forms ^^J^ec^</ (-) and ^^Jt^a^/ (-). 
 The existence of the latter is certainly confirmed to some 
 degree by the monophthongized form gescid (-) though this 
 could come from gesc&dd by change of stress in the diph- 
 thong. If, however, tosciat and gesciad are strictly speak- 
 ing, ambiguous, there can be no question of the remaining 
 cases, sciap and scianan. In 2, the vowel is not aflFected 
 till it has reached the form e. The a, with <7-color, of 
 *scandian umlauted to cs, which became e by influence of 
 the nasal and was then diphthongized to ie. The only 
 
86 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 difficulty as regards this case is presented by the parallel 
 word scencan, which does not show parallel forms *sciencan, 
 *scincany *scyncan. The supposition that the a in scencan 
 had more of <7-quality and so remained longer, being 
 affected neither to ea or te, till the tendency to diphthong- 
 ize was concluded, on the strength of sicsnc, csngel^ in Ael- 
 fred, is precluded by sccendan in the Cotton MSS. II. 164,5, 
 etc. (see Rehm, p. 17 ; Biilbring's statement, § 171, note, 
 needs correction). The simple explanation is that there 
 are only these two stems, and the affection is of a character 
 to be sporadic, owing to the nature of the development of 
 j(7, and the possibility of its development to sH (see below). 
 The remaining example, gescp, is clear. 
 
 III. The examples of sc before gutturals are, unfortu- 
 nately, not as numerous or as decisive as might be wished, 
 especially in the earlier documents. They are, however, 
 fairly conclusive. 
 
 I. a (except pre-nasal a) : The examples with a include 
 (Rehm, § i a) sc{e)acap (139.19 omitted by Rehm), 
 sceadu^ o/ersceadap, scearum in Hatton^ sceacap (139.19; 
 omitted), ofersceadop^ scadu in Cotton. Bede has sceapena 
 (all manuscripts), scafepa (2 B) ; scafe^ scare in B (Rehm, 
 p. 7), point to scafan^ scaru (a number of cases of 
 '■scearu' cited by Rehm are not in point, the form in each 
 case being sceare). The Blickling Homilies have sceapa^ 
 sceapum, sceapena. The Homilies have forms of sceacan, 
 sceadu., gesceapu, sceapa, over against one case of scadu. 
 The Grammar has sceacan (references omitted, and refer- 
 ence belonging to sceadu^ also omitted, attributed to it), 
 sceadu^ -sceafa, sceapa^ sceara (^for/ex), beside scapa in R, 
 scalu in all manuscripts. The Pentateuch has sceacan., 
 gesceapu. The Gospels have sceacan^ sceapa^ and two 
 monophthongized forms scecap^ scepan. The early exam- 
 ples, sceadu., qfersceadop, -ap (stem, sceadw-)^ sceacap (influ- 
 ence of 3d and 3d persons singular), are all dubious, except 
 
West Saxon. 87 
 
 the forms of sceapa. But this word and (on the whole) 
 sceaca are satisfactory evidence of fairly general diph- 
 thongization of a in the Aelfredian texts, a conclusion 
 corroborated by the testimony in regard to d. 
 
 2. d (Rehm, II. § i a): The undiphthongized and diph- 
 thongized forms of scddan stand, in the Cura Pastoralis in 
 the relation. Cotton 3 : 6, Hatton 5:8; similarly gescdd^-), 
 Cotton 1 : 4, Hatton 5 : 45. Bede for scddan has the relation : 
 T, 1 : 6 ; B, 3 : 6 ; O, o : 6 ; Ca, o : 8. Gescdd{^ appears in 
 every case with the diphthong in all manuscripts. Scdn 
 appears beside scedn: T, 6 : o ; B, 7 : o ; C, 2 : o ; O, 0:6; Ca, 
 1 : 7. The Blickling Homilies have one case of scdn beside 
 one of scedn. Aelfric's Homilies have sceddan, gescedd{^, 
 scedn, in numerous cases {scia , listed by Rehm, does not 
 belong here). The Grammar has sceddan, gescedd (-), with 
 a few cases of gescdd^-). The Pentateuch has scdn (i), 
 gescedd (i). The Gospels have gescedd, scedn with scdn in 
 one case in A, B, and C. 
 
 The forms in the Aelfredian texts confirm the conclu- 
 sion that diphthongization of a, d, was fairly general. 
 Special attention should be given to the forms (Rehm, p. 36) 
 gescMwise 281. 11, 381.21 in Hatton. 
 
 3. Pre-nasal a, o <. a (Rehm, I. § i d) : The examples 
 here {scamu, scamian, scand, sceam-ul, etc.) need not be 
 specifically designated, as they are wholly unambiguous. 
 Rehm gives the statistics as follows : The Cura Pastoralis 
 has sea : scea : : Cotton, 77 : i, Hatton, 75 : 7 ; sco : sceo : : 
 Cotton, 7 : 3, Hatton, 8:1. Bede has sea, sco, 7 ; sceo, 9. 
 Of the 9, 6 are in the latest manuscript, Ca, while the 
 older manuscripts have 14 cases without and only 3 with 
 the glide. Aelfric's works show ea preponderatingly, and 
 the Gospels exclusively except in two cases of scamul. 
 Rehm notes that it is interesting that this word should 
 appear (in the various texts) 17 times without, and only 5 
 times with, the glide. This is plainly due to etymologic 
 
88 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 spelling (cf. scamel twice recorded in twelve and five MSS. 
 respectively). 
 
 4. O (Rehm, I. § 4). Relim remarks (p. 25), "Bunter 
 ist das Bild im ws. : Her stehen 598 sco 1273 sceo gegen- 
 iiber." The distribution of these forms is however of 
 importance. In the Cura Pastoralis^ Cotton has scolde^ 
 etc., 13 (also sculdon), sceolde, etc., 95, with scofen (2), wip- 
 scorap, scoren (2), scort (2), undiphthongized ; Hatton has 
 scolde^ etc. (also sculdon)^ 'j'j^ sceolde^ etc., 64 (also sciolde ; 
 scioldon is given without a reference), with gescot (2), scoten 
 (2), wipsceorap. Bede shows much the same relation, 
 scolde, etc., T 48, O 3, B 10, Ca 6 (also scalde), sceolde, etc., 
 T 47, O 87, B 89, Ca 93 ; scofen, T i, B i, O i, sceofen, 
 Ca I ; scoren, 88, sceoren, O i, Ca i ; Scottas, etc., T 34, 
 B 60, O 33, Ca 53, Sceottas, etc., T 2, O 3, B i, Ca 4. 
 The Blickling Homilies have scolde, 2, sceolde, etc., 49, 
 with sceofen, sceoren, sceortan, i each. Aelfric's Homilies 
 have sceolde, 181; scofen, 8, sceofen, 3; scoren, T.,sceoren, 
 2 ; scort, etc., 17, sceort, etc., 21 ; scoten, 5, gesceot, i. The 
 Grammar has scolde, i, sceolde, 43 (also scealdon); scop, 8, 
 jtr^o^, 48 (also sceap); scort, etc., 119, sceort, etc., 372. 
 The Pentateuch has scolde, i, sceolde, 13 ; ofscotod, i, 
 gesceot, I ; gesceortade. The Gospels have scolde, i, 
 sceolde, 38; scofen, 2, sceofen, i ; sceoppan, i (in Cp, B, C, A). 
 
 5. ^ (Rehm, II. § 5). The texts of the Cwro! Pastoralis 
 agree in the following examples : j<r^c (pret.), i ; onscbd, 
 etc., 5 ; ansctgen, i, scedgan, i ; gescbp, 2, gescebp, 2. -ff^^(? 
 has jf^'^ (pret), B i, Ca i ; j^-^/, T 2, O 2, Ca2, B i, j^^^/, 
 B I ; Jf^, I (in all manuscripts), gescebp, T i, B 5, O 4, Ca 
 I. The Blickling Homilies have gescebp, 5. Aelfric's 
 Homilies have j^'^j, j<:^«, sceban, 3, jc'^^j, 2 ; J^^/, 2 ; Jf^^^', 
 2 ; J<r^^ (imp.), I ; gescebp, 61, scebpon, 3. The Grammar 
 has scbgan, i (in 11 manuscripts), scebgan, i (in 4); jc^/, 
 36, j(r^^/, I ; j£-i?^ C/^<^o), 2 in 6 manuscripts. The Pentateuch 
 has unscebda, 1, gescebp, 19. The Gospels have gescebd, 3 ; 
 
West Saxon. 89 
 
 scedna, 3 ; scedpwancg, 4, -wang, 4 ; gescedp, 3. Compare 
 also what is said of seed/an under 7. 
 
 6. u (Rehm, I. § 5). In the Cura Pastoralis, the Cotton 
 has sculon, -an, 67, sceolon, -an, i ; onscunian{-igan), 7 ; 
 sculdor, 2. Hatton has sculon, -an, 81, sceolon, -an, 4; 
 onscunian{-tgan), 12; sculdor, i. ^^^^ has sculon, -an, 
 T 12, O 13, B 20, Ca 9, sceolon, -an, T 2, O 3, B i, Ca 9; 
 ■f£«;9, T I, O I, Ca I ; sculdar, T 2, B 2 ; -scunian, T 5, 
 O 5, B 7, Ca 6; scuton, B i, Ca i ; scurf, B i, C i, sceorf, 
 O I, Ca I. The Blickling Homilies have sculon, 2 (in 
 4 manuscripts), beside sceolon, sceolan, 69, sceole, 8; 
 scucna, i, sculdar, i, onscunian, onscunigan, 3. Aelfric's 
 Homilies have sculon, i, sceolon, 225, sceole, 40; scucca, 5, 
 sceocca, 16; sculdor, 2; onscunian, 12; scuton, 11; j^T^/g, 
 I ; scoria}), i, is admitted by error. The Grammar has 
 sculon, 7, sceolon, -an, 82 ; sculdor, 7 ; {^scunian, etc., 58, 
 sceonian, etc., U 2 ; J^^df, scutum, i T ; scofle, i W, sceofol, 
 6 ; scolon, T i. The Pentateuch has sculdor, i ; onscunian, 
 etc., 10; sceolon, -an, 26. The Gospels have sculon, -an, 6, 
 sceolon, -an, 7, sceole, 23 ; scufon (pret. pi.), 8 ; onscunian, 9, 
 sconian, 4 ; scuton, 4 ; sceucca, sceocca, 3. 
 
 7. ^ (Rehm, II. § 6). The forms in the C«ra Pastoralis 
 are sctir, Cotton 1, Hatton 7)] scdfep, Cotton 1, Hatton i. 
 In Bede, sdia, scHwa, Ca i ; scHfan, T i, B 3, O i, Ca 2. 
 In the Blickling Homilies, scda, i. In Aelfric {Homilies) 
 scHfan, 3, scedfan, 3, j^^r, 5 ; {Grammar) scHfan, D i, F ij 
 H 2, J 2, T I, sceiife, i in 8 MSS., sceHfe in place oi scia/e, 
 D I, scedfe, i in 2 manuscripts and i in 10, sda/e, O i, 
 sceoAfe, A i ; {Pentateuch) sciHr, i, scebfan, i.' 
 
 Unmistakable evidence of the insertion of a glide 
 
 'Rehm, unfortunately, frequently groups various forms under para- 
 digmatic headings (e. g. scufanne under scu/an, etc.). This is of little 
 consequence as regards the o and a vowels, but because of it, and of 
 numerous errors of reference, etc., his work must be used with extreme 
 caution ; compare the review in Modem Language Notes, i8, 58. Safe 
 general conclusions are however satisfactorily indicated by his lists. 
 
go Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 before ^ is found in Aelfric in sceiifan. But this word 
 demands a moment's further consideration. It might be 
 supposed that the forms with ed in the late texts indicate 
 the change of eii to ed because of introduction of the 
 glide. This may not be the case, even though the influ- 
 ence of the ablaut type (producing scSo/an) might also be 
 assumed. The form in Aelfred scdfep, -eti, 168-169.13, 
 appearing in both texts, cannot be thus explained, for we 
 can hardly suppose the form diphthongized and the glide 
 not indicated (compare sceolon, -an, Cotton i, Hatton 4). 
 It seems more probable that a form scbfan existed beside 
 scAfan. In that case, the numerous forms with ed in Ael- 
 fric may be due to this variant, and sceo-dfan may be due to 
 scribal confusion. Sciafe is of course due to the preterit. 
 
 The conclusions to be drawn from this evidence may 
 perhaps be rendered clearer by a brief review of the sepa- 
 rate texts. In the Cura Pastoralis a, d, show a general 
 tendency to diphthongize, but pre-nasal a, (< a), o, 6, show 
 but a slight tendency, and «, ^, none, the forms of sculan, 
 however forming a special exception in the case of o, u. 
 Bede shows much the same relation as the Cura Pastoralis ; 
 diphlhongization is markedly more common in the latest 
 manuscript, Ca. In the Blickling Homilies, diphthongiza- 
 tion, except of u, ^, becomes the rule. In the remaining 
 texts, diphthongization also affects u, -d, to some extent. 
 Undiphthongized cases occur owing to individual or sub- 
 dialectal usage, scribal negligence, or non-West-Saxon 
 influence, but the general testimony is clear. The impor- 
 tant points are the partial tendency affecting a, d, to some 
 extent and pre-nasal a, o, 3, to a slight extent, and the 
 exceptional character of the forms of sculan, which is 
 taken up below. 
 
 In considering the general development after sk just 
 reviewed, the most significant feature is the diphthongiza- 
 tion of secondary palatal vowels. This occurs only after 
 
West Saxon. 91 
 
 sc, as also in the few cases in Anglian. It must then be 
 assumed to be due to the special tendency of s6, owing to 
 the J, to assume palatal quality. 
 
 From this affection of secondary palatal vowels, the 
 inference follows directly, that in all positions in which 
 the combination had conserved the value sk, it was, after 
 the period of «-umlaut affected in varying degrees towards 
 the value sJk or s^ — in other words, the change of quality of 
 si before guttural vowels, causing the introduction of a 
 glide, may be shown to have had a common dependence 
 in origin with the change leading to the diphthongization 
 of secondary palatal vowels. It cannot be supposed that 
 a new sk^, sk<^, ske, developed to s^iz, si^, sie, etc., 
 and so to scea, scSa, sde, simply by virtue of the palatal 
 vowel, else A, g, would similarly have been palatalized and 
 would have similarly influenced these vowels. It is also 
 impossible to suppose that the palatal influence of s only 
 began to exert itself when the formation of a new palatal 
 vowel after it provided a factor to cooperate with it in 
 palatalizing the k. Plainly, sk was at some period after 
 z-umlaut, before diphthongization of secondary palatals took 
 place, already affected in some measure toward palatal 
 quality by influence of the s. Before taking up the ques- 
 tion of the process of the development, and the relation in 
 point of time of the affections of secondary palatals and of 
 gutturals, the question of the time at which the diphthong- 
 ization of secondary palatal vowels took place must first 
 be considered. 
 
 To this question, the word sciendan affords an answer. 
 As Biilbring points out {Elementarbuch, § 289, note i), the 
 diphthongization in this word must be assumed to be later 
 than the change of <^ to ^ before nasals, which in accord- 
 ance with Sievers {Anglia 13,16 f) is to be set probably in 
 the second quarter of the 8th century. The diphthongiza- 
 tion of <^, ^, we may add, is naturally also to be set later 
 
93 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 than this date, else sciendan would have been diphthong- 
 ized, while in the form *sc<zndan^ to *sceandan (diphthong- 
 ization of ^ cannot, of course, be supposed to have been 
 anterior to that of cs). This would bring the diphthong- 
 ization of secondary ce, a^ e, to some indeterminate later 
 date, presumably in the last part of the 8th century or first 
 part of the 9th. 
 
 » It would seem as if a connexion was here indicated 
 between the diphthongization of secondary palatals and the 
 introduction of a glide before gutturals. Sk had not of 
 itself become so far palatal before circa 725 as to diph- 
 thongize <^, ^, and yet the j had to some extent fronted the 
 k, else the subsequent development would not have taken 
 place after sk alone, but after k, g, also. This influence of 
 the s must also have been operative in sk before guttural 
 vowels, and sk must, both before the secondary palatals 
 and gutturals, have become s^, whence developed palatal 
 sx (or, as a variant, j<r) before the secondary palatals, and 
 sif before the gutturals. What interval of time intervened 
 between the diphthongization of the secondary palatal 
 vowels and the inception of the diphthongization of the 
 gutturals, it is of course impossible to say. But as the sk 
 before gutturals in common with the sk before the second- 
 ary palatals, must have by 750 have become j;f, it may be 
 assumed that the inception of the change of s^ to sif before 
 gutterals and their diphthongization coincided with, or fol- 
 lowed close after, the diphthongization of the secondary 
 palatals. Hence, the diphthongization of a, d by sl^ which 
 was the inception of the diphthongization of guttural vow- 
 els, must have begun in the first half of the 9th century. 
 This theoretic conclusion is borne out by the conditions 
 in the Aelfredian texts. A., d are already largely affected, 
 and the other guttural vowels measurably according to 
 their quality. 
 
 To return to the diphthongization of secondary palatal 
 
West Saxon. 93 
 
 vowels and the development of sk. A notable feature of 
 the examples, and a test of them, indeed, is their occurrence 
 in variant forms without diphthongization, e. g. sa^/i, 
 scez ig^ scSp, scendan, etc., beside scea/i, sciendan, etc. 
 An explanation of this fact might be sought in the assump- 
 tion that the diphthongization was sporadic and that diph- 
 thongized forms remained beside those diphthongized. But 
 this is not an adequate explanation, if a more specific one 
 can be offered ; the element of apparent haphazard may not 
 perhaps be removed, but it may perhaps be shown why 
 diversity of development, though still seemingly accidental, 
 was possible. 
 
 Biilbring, to whom so large a debt is owed in the expo- 
 sition of this subject, has, in treating these variant forms, 
 referred them to the Saxon patois as distinguished from the 
 pure West Saxon dialect of Aelfred and Aelfric. The 
 various subsidiary dialects, referred to collectively under 
 this name, are not, it need hardly be said, to be regarded 
 as a single and different and consistent dialect distinct 
 from the West Saxon. The patois of course at various 
 points exhibits affiliations with extra-West Saxon dialects, 
 as it also exhibits dialectal characters distinctive of the 
 pure West Saxon. If certain features of z-umlaut, if a 
 more extensive development of u-o umlaut, or the like, are 
 displayed by it, on the one hand, in common with Mer- 
 cian, on the other hand it displays West Saxon <#, the 
 breaking before A, and so on (cf. Biilbring, Elementarbuch, 
 § 179, note). But resemblances to dialects other than 
 West Saxon, whether derived from them or separately 
 developed, do not cover all the diversities. The patois will 
 of course display variations that pertain to the West Saxon 
 or Saxon proper and are incident to its independent de- 
 velopment. The conditions in reo^ard to these, it is incor- 
 rect, in a sense, to formulate into a hard and fast statement 
 — ^to say for example, that in pure West Saxon such and 
 
94 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 such conditions are found, while in the patois the reverse 
 is the case. It may, likewise, be historically incorrect to 
 say that particular forms in pure West Saxon texts are 
 patois forms. The real meaning of such a statement is 
 that certain forms, historically justified, are retained despite 
 the preferred and normal usage exhibited by the majority 
 of words of like origin. This appears, for example, in a 
 form like sceppan, which became the regular form of the 
 verb in place of *sczeppan, which indeed appears in the 
 poetic scyppan. 
 
 It seems helpful to hold to this point of view in consid- 
 ering the variant forms without diphthongization, referred 
 to above. Biilbring's statements in regard to the absence 
 of diphthongization in the patois suggest or imply that 
 this is a broad distinction of the patois as over against 
 the pure dialect. Thus he says (§ 152), that e is in great 
 part retained; <^ is in part retained ; (§ 153) partial reten- 
 tion of ez is probably to be assumed ; (§ 181) in the Saxon 
 patois^ in which cs in part underwent no diphthongization, 
 it is naturally in a certain measure umlauted to e. In the 
 case of a variation of this character, the possibility must be 
 kept in mind that it may stand in a more intimate relation 
 with the development of the pure dialect than other varia- 
 tions, that it may not be due to geographical contiguity to 
 non-West Saxon dialects, intermixture from them, or ex- 
 tension of a tendency represented in a more limited form 
 in the pure dialect. 
 
 In the present case, it is quite natural to assume off- 
 hand, as a convenient general conception, that diphthong- 
 ization ruled in the pure dialect and was accidental or not 
 carried through consistently in the patois — such a view, in 
 brief, as a reader would form from Biilbring's last state- 
 ment. Yet, considering the time at which the general 
 affection took place, a limitation of the tendency of this 
 character, at least to the degree apparently indicated by a 
 
West Saxon. 95 
 
 superficial review of the examples, is unlikely. That varia- 
 tion should apply to every type of word susceptible of 
 diphthongization, and that variant forms of these should 
 persist in contravention of the general tendency during the 
 period of its operation, is improbable. Variation would 
 naturally rather occur in special classes of words and for 
 specific reasons. 
 
 If now the examples of words without diphthongization 
 in the paiozs are examined, such limitation of variation to 
 a special group seems apparent. Of <^, Biilbring adduces 
 [Elementarbuch^ § 152, note) cases in the Harleian Gloss 
 (Wright-Wiilker, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabula- 
 ries, I, 192-247) : forg(zfi sccBtt, gesccsft, gesccBp. Com- 
 pare also the poetic forms referred to by Sievers (§ 75, 
 note i) : gcsst, scczd, sctzr, etc. Of ^, Biilbring remarks 
 (§ 153, note), that partial retention of iz is probably to be 
 assumed, though only one or two doubtful examples appear : 
 ofg(zfon in the Genesis, 85, and ag&fe (conj.), sccBp, beside 
 ag^fe, sc^p, in Rushworth^. To these may be added scezron 
 (Sievers, § 75, note i). In the case of e, in place of ie by 
 umlaut < ^« < ^, Biilbring (§181, note) gives only a gen- 
 eral reference to sceppend, sceppan, cele, scell, etc., remarking 
 that in Aelfred such forms are isolated {sceppend and cele, 
 each once), while in Aelfric trustworthy examples fail. 
 
 A notable fact at once becomes apparent, when these 
 examples are considered together, namely that all but one 
 or two have sc initial. The exceptions are forgcsf, ofgtz- 
 fon, agtzfe, cele. Of these -gcsf, in the Harleian Gloss, 
 is quite isolated in texts having any pretensions to be 
 called West Saxon. That it is to be regarded as a variant 
 of geaf, retained from the period of diphthongization is 
 rendered extremely improbable by the presence in the same 
 text of agifen, forgifen. A mere scribal error it can hardly 
 be. Analogy of its ablaut-row can scarcely be supposed to 
 have aifected the preterit alone. Even to suppose it un- 
 
g6 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 related to the participle -gifen in the same text helps but 
 little. Here ofgSfon {Genesis), ag^fe {RushworthF), may 
 be considered. Though their West Saxon character may 
 be doubtful, as Biilbring notes, they are none the less not 
 proper Anglian or Kentish forms, and their occurrence in 
 separate texts renders doubtful their being cases of ortho- 
 graphic substitution of & for t. They argue an undiph- 
 thongized 2d sing, and plural preterit. With this support, 
 it might be possible to assume an undiphthongized form 
 of the verb persisting from the period of general diph- 
 thongization through influence of the ablaut-type (the -gaef^ 
 -gifen of the Gloss being assumed to be independent of 
 each other). Or it is conceivable that gesf^as due to an 
 undiphthongized gcef, gSfon. This may seem merely to 
 remove the difficulty to another quarter. But it is not at 
 all certain that diphthongization of tz (< West Germanic 
 d) was carried through consistently. The difficult word 
 g^sne, beside gSasne, is best explained as an undiphthong- 
 ized form. Scdp also seems to belong here, as not con- 
 forming to the explanation given below of the forms with 
 sc ; sc^ron is dubious, as it shares immunity in variant 
 usage with the other forms of the verb, apparently by influ- 
 ence of the ablaut-type. That other cases do not appear 
 is not really surprising in view of the small number of 
 words with this vowel. In support of possible retention 
 of undiphthongized forms, the discussion above of the 
 quality of <#, as less palatal than cz, may also be considered. 
 The point to be emphasized is that, in spite of the con- 
 junction of undiphthongized forms in the Gloss, only the 
 form -gisf appears, apart from loan-words and those hav- 
 ing sc. Outside of this text, the cases are confined to the 
 undoubtedly related forms agafe, ofgdfon, with the poetic 
 gczst and cele, both of which admit of another explanation, 
 and gtzsne. GcBst has already been discussed above. Cele, 
 found in Aelfred, may be satisfactorily referred, as Cosijn 
 
West Saxon. 97 
 
 suggested (p. 63), to the influence of gecUan (309.7) with 
 kelnes (309.1). G&sne must be accepted as an undiph- 
 thongized form, and as such brought into conjunction with 
 ag&fe, ofgSfon^ as attesting variant retention of undiph- 
 thongized &. 
 
 No other cases with c, g, offer themselves in which 
 diphthongization should normally be expected, but does 
 not occur. The remainder of the cases, and they are 
 numerous, have sc. The variation is, in fact, practically 
 confined to a special group, and for this group an explana- 
 tion is sought. In considering the examples, a point to 
 be kept in mind is the possibility that lack of diphthong- 
 ization was due to retention of sk by influence of related 
 forms with guttural vowels. 
 
 The first example, scestt, is a clear case of variation ; 
 retention of sk may be surmised owing to the plural and 
 the influence of scot. 
 
 Gescez/t has already been discussed and referred to the 
 group having post-umlaut diphthongization. 
 
 GesccBp can be supposed to have retained sk by influence 
 of the plural, and of the verb (see below). 
 
 Scczd may have retained sk by influence of the plural, 
 also of the related form scadu. In this form, as in the last, 
 the question rises whether the plural could preclude diph- 
 thongization through the singular. Scadu itself was, of 
 course, exposed to influence of all the other cases of the 
 singular. In the Cura Pastoralis, however, scadu {Hattori) 
 occurs beside sceadu {Cotton)^ and the form with the diph- 
 thong seems to be due to insertion of a glide before the 
 guttural. 
 
 Sccsr, sc&ron^ in poetic use, offer a problem. Biilbring 
 {Elemeniarbuch^ § 303) supposes two forms, scedron with 
 original d retained, and sciaron with & by analogy. Sup- 
 posing the first of these to have existed, as no doubt it did, 
 retention of sk in scceron might be surmised by its influ- 
 7 
 
98 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 ence. But this does not explain sceer^ or still more sceran^ 
 occurring twenty-six times in Aelfric's Grammar in all 
 manuscripts. The influence of the ablaut-type, especially 
 of beran^ was probably the factor which occasioned this 
 lack of diphthongization. 
 
 ScSp, in RushwortJ^^ cannot have retained sk through 
 analogy, but owing to its vowel, it may be classed with 
 agcefe^ -g&/on, gtzsne. 
 
 Sceppend occurs in five cases in Bede (Rehm, p. 18), and 
 the Grammar has ic gesceppe, 158, 5 H. Two explana- 
 tions are possible. One is that two forms developed, the 
 normal *skeapjan and the variant *sl(Bpjan, whence re- 
 spectively *sHeppan and '^sieppan. The other is that a form 
 *skcepjan existed with sk from the other forms of the verb, 
 whence ^skeppan. Such a form might have produced 
 ^skieppan by post-umlaut diphthongization, which would 
 merge with the normal form, also a form ^sleppan^ like 
 scendan beside sciendan. Sceppan has already been dis- 
 cussed as regards the forms sceapan^ sccBppan. In this 
 word, taking into account the poetical form scyppan^ all 
 the possible forms developed. Pre-umlaut *skeapjan gave 
 *scieppan^ whence scyppan. Pre-umlaut *skapjan gave 
 *skcsppan, whence by post-umlaut diphthongization sceap- 
 pan, sceaptan, and through development of sif, sctzppan. 
 Pre-umlaut skczpjan^ with sk from other forms of the verb 
 and from *skapa^ or sccepj'an, supposing pre-umlaut exist- 
 ence of si as a possibility to be considered, gave *skeppan 
 or sHeppan. It is of course not necessary to assume pre- 
 umlaut *skaep/an, for if sk ruled through the influence of 
 the preterit and the noun, *skeppan, by post-umlaut diph- 
 thongization, might have given skieppan as a source of 
 scyppan on the one hand and sifeppan, the prevailing form 
 on the other. 
 
 A comparison with scieppan is instructive. The ques- 
 tion suggests itself whether it may not have had a form 
 
West Saxon. 99 
 
 *skapjan to give *skcsppan and hence '^skeapan beside 
 '^sCcEppan. The possibility of such a form cannot be read- 
 ily demonstrated. The only possible causes for it, which 
 offer themselves are the existence of a present stem without 
 y, influence of a variant *gescap of the noun due to 
 the plural, or influence of the ablaut-type. The last of 
 these is the only one worthy a moment's consideration. 
 The possibility of sk being carried through from the other 
 forms of the verb is apparent, and to this presumably 
 the recorded form, sceppan, is due. What is wanted is not 
 an initial sk^ but a stem-vowel a. The influence of the 
 ablaut-type seems somewhat remote, yet a form ^skapjan, 
 due to this cause, may have existed in West Saxon, and its 
 derivatives *sceappan, ^sceapian or *sc<zppan, *sc(Bpian 
 (with s(') may yet be discovered. *Skapjan seems indeed 
 to be represented in derivative forms in Northumbrian in 
 the sasppend (2), sceppend {1), sxi^ gesceap'' (168.19), ^^ the 
 Ritual. It does not seem probable that these are due to a 
 new post-umlaut formation on analogy of the noun gisccBp. 
 
 Scell owes its lack of diphthongization presumably to 
 retention of sk by influence of scalu. Another pre-umlaut 
 variant with a is theoretically possible, which might give 
 by post-umlaut diphthongization ^sceal, beside *sccbI (with 
 sc). The first of these would merge with scealu (from 
 scalu by insertion of a glide before «), but *sceal may yet 
 be found as a nominative, or *scczl in some case of the 
 singular. 
 
 Scizb (Leechdoms B, i. 322.17), beside sceabb, may pre- 
 sumably be due to retention of sk by influence of scafan. 
 
 Sccer, seer (" uomis seer, scser DH, scear J W fehlt O ") 
 in Aelfric's Grammar^ 55- ^6, similarly shows influence of 
 sceran. 
 
 The list concludes with scael^ sc^l^ beside sceal, which 
 will be taken up in connexion with the discussion of 
 sculan below. 
 
lOo Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 The array of cases is certainly significant, when com- 
 pared with the few forms without diphthongization not 
 having sc in anlaut. The question offers itself what is the 
 explanation of this special proclivity of forms with sc to 
 display lack of diphthongization, not so much as regards 
 the reason for it, which must have been the double devel- 
 opment of sk to s& and sf, but as regards the period at 
 which it occurred. Theoretically, it is possible that sk 
 might have developed both values at the time of general 
 diphthongization. One naturally hesitates to accept such 
 a conclusion, and with reason. This is not because 
 it would carry the sif value so far back, but because there is 
 no real reason to suppose that the orderly development of 
 sk to s^ before palatals should be precluded by accidental 
 saltus to s^. Moreover, there was then a clear separation 
 of sk and ji/ any accidental variation to sif in a few cases 
 would have been estopped. It will be noted that, in all 
 the examples, there are reasons why sk may have been 
 retained in variant usage by influence of related forms. 
 Herein, it would seem, is the true explanation. These 
 undiphthongized forms with sk persisted until j>l in gen- 
 eral gave way through influence of the s, being supported 
 throughout by the related forms which caused them, until 
 the sk in those forms itself began to yield by the same 
 afiection that produced diphthongization of gutturals. 
 These undiphthongized forms with sk were, in fact, similar 
 to the forms with secondary palatal vowels ; some of them 
 indeed, which received not only sk but a vowel a from 
 related forms, contained secondary palatal vowels. They 
 would undergo, then, the same development as that through 
 which the forms with secondary palatal vowels passed, and 
 like them would persist in two forms, one with s& and 
 diphthongization, and the other with j^ without diph- 
 thongization. 
 
 It may be asked why the k and the ^ did not undergo 
 
West Saxon. loi 
 
 a similar development. The reason is apparent. The 
 "words with k and ^ were not similarly subjected to the 
 influence of related forms and of words of similar meaning. 
 The single influence upon these words, that might produce 
 a variant with & or ^, in place of I and £, is the plural in 
 the case of strong nouns. The verbs all lack supporting 
 forms. If variants were produced with k and £■ in the 
 noun, they would still succumb to the influence of the 
 prevailing singular type and not come to be recorded. 
 
 An examination of the cases of sk will make clear how 
 exceptional a group they form^ as regards the existence of 
 forms able to effect their variant retention of sk. The verb 
 sceran, sc<zr, scSron, is one example in which retention of 
 sk cannot be surmised, but here the influence of the ablaut- 
 type and especially of beran seems to explain sufficiently 
 the lack of diphthongization. Sc&p, a second case, may 
 be referred to the group of forms with S, referred to above. 
 In brief, the variant retention of sk^ and its double devel- 
 opment in the same manner and at the same time as the 
 j>^, in forms with secondary palatal vowels, affords an 
 explanation of this special group of examples. 
 
 SccbI^ beside sc^l^ was not treated in the list of examples, 
 that it might be taken up in connexion with other forms 
 of the verb. It occurs in Orosius, and in a number of 
 cases in the Cura Pastoralis (Rehm, p. lo), and also 
 appears in the Grammar. This form cannot be explained 
 as merely a monophthongization, or as due to lack of stress. 
 The development of the verb as a whole is of exceptional 
 interest. It displays very early and to a marked extent 
 diphthongization of forms with guttural vowels. Biilbring 
 {Elementarbuch, § 511) refers this to extension of palatal 
 sc (marked by him with accented sc) from sceal, scyle into 
 sculon, whence sceolon^ and scoldon^ whence sceoldon. That 
 levelling of this character took place is probable, but 
 the question will admit of further examination in the 
 
I02 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 light of the full record of the cases with sc in Rehm's mon- 
 ograph. 
 
 The question is whether it is necessary to assume exten- 
 sion of sk from forms in which it occurred early into those 
 having o and «. Insertion of a glide before o had not 
 apparently become normal usage in Aelfred's time, and 
 plainly not before u. But the word is one occurring in 
 most frequent use and might be expected far to outstrip 
 others in its phonetic development. Moreover evidence as 
 regards other words is scanty ; in the case of <?, we have, in 
 the Cura Pastoralis twelve cases, counting both manu- 
 scripts, of scofen, wipscorap^ scoren^ scort^ gescot, scoten. 
 Further the possibility is to be remembered that the scribe 
 did not consider it necessary to give the glide ortho- 
 graphic expression, if the word explained itself sufficiently 
 without; the single example with the glide in Hatton^ 
 wipsceorap, apart from the cases of sceolde^ indicates that 
 the glide might be recognized on occasion. Yet again, the 
 relation of the diphthongized to the undiphthongized forms 
 of sceolde^ scolde{<^^ : 13 in Cotton^ 64: 77 in Hattori) would 
 seem to indicate rather variation incident to a growing 
 tendency, than to conform with the supposition of an 
 influence, the conditions for which were present from an 
 extremely early period. Finally, in the case of sculon^ 
 sculan, there is the significant fact that, in contrast to 
 sceolde, scolde, the relation of the diphthongized to the 
 undiphthongized forms is i : 67 in Cotton, 4 : 158 in Hatton. 
 On the supposition of an extension of palatal s% into these 
 forms, we ought to find here frequent and well-defined 
 diphthongization ; the ratios should not be in such marked 
 contrast to those in the case of o. Indeed, it is into the 
 forms with «, as present forms, that the extension should 
 first have taken place, as the forms with the palatal were 
 the present singular indicative and conjunctive. In the 
 case of the u, we shoitld of course remember as a possible 
 
West Saxon. 103 
 
 orthographic condition, that the indication of the glide was 
 not forced upon the scribe until the word has taken the 
 form sceolon, sceolan. But this does not explain why 
 precisely these forms are not more common. And con- 
 ditions as regards u in Aelfred are quite in keeping with 
 the evidence of a growing tendency displayed by the other 
 texts. In Bede O, Ca, in which the ratio of ^£> to m is 3 : 
 13 in O, 9: 9 in Ca, scurf appears as sceorf 338.18, while 
 in the Blickling Homilies and Aelfric, conditions are 
 reversed as regards u; scarcely a case of sculon^ sculan, 
 can be found that has not eo. 
 
 These considerations seem to aflford fairly convincing 
 proof of the independent development of eo from o and u. 
 One more point must be touched upon which naturally 
 suggests itself, namely why, if the development is inde- 
 pendent, there should be in the Aelfredian texts so great a 
 disparity between the number of cases of scolde with eo^ 
 and oi sculon^ sculan, with eo; there should not, one should 
 think, be so great a difference between the development of 
 o and u. Some influence must undoubtedly be referred to 
 the scribe's not indicating the glide in the case of the «, 
 except when writing the altered diphthong, but the real 
 answer is that there was such an actual difference. One 
 has only to look at the later texts to find it clearly indi- 
 cated. In the later texts, the insertion of the glide before 
 has taken place in a large number of words ; in the case 
 of M, while eo is used in sceolon, sceolan, and has begun to 
 appear elsewhere in a few words (enough to establish the 
 fact that the diphthong was recognized), namely sceocca, 
 sceofol, sceonian, the u still persists, except in sceolan, 
 sceolan, in the majority of cases. 
 
 The fact that the change of o, u, to eo seems demonstra- 
 bly an independent development does not of course exclude 
 the possibility of contributory influence from the presence 
 of sk in other forms of the verb ; the conclusion just 
 
I04 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 reached simply goes to show that the development was not 
 wholly or substantially due to such influence. The 
 forms in which s& first originated, and which Biilbring 
 adduces as influencing the forms with o and u, are the 
 present, sceal, scealt^ and the optative (with ?-umlaut) scyle. 
 What was the quality of the sc in these forms ? 
 
 Theoretically, the present singular, *sktzl, must have 
 undergone diphthongization according to rule, and the 
 uniformity of the recorded form attests that it did so. 
 Sceal, therefore, may be presumed to represent, in Aelfred, 
 s^eal, the falling diphthong demonstrating itself in the 
 monophthongized form seel. What now was the nature 
 of the less frequent form scezl? Biilbring {Elementar- 
 buch, § 454) refers to this form as rare and classes it as 
 an unstressed form. Rare it is, though it is not confined 
 to Orosius (which Biilbring cites), as Rehm's record (p. 
 10) now provide five cases in the Cotton Cur a Pastor- 
 alis. Is it, however, an unstressed form ? Precisely what 
 difference an unstressed form of sceal would assume, it is, 
 of course, difficult to say ; so far as one may judge from 
 other words, one would rather expect the more open vowel, 
 a. The word certainly appears in a large number of 
 cases for an unstressed form, and especially considering 
 its meaning. Scealt, the 2d person, it may be added, occur- 
 ring some ninety odd times in the various texts (there are 
 only three in the Cur a Pastoralis\ shows no 'unstressed' 
 form of similar character ; this in itself is a substantial 
 argument against the reference of lack of diphthongization 
 in sccelto lack of stress, as the diphthong in scealt is due 
 to breaking, but would be quite as subject to such an influ- 
 ence (compare forms without breaking under secondary 
 stress in composition). These various considerations seem 
 to prove that sccbI is not an unstressed form of sceal. It 
 falls then naturally into the group that retained sk by 
 influence of the sk of related forms with guttural vowels, 
 until the sk yielded and became sS. 
 
West Saxon. 105 
 
 As regards the influence of forms with palatal sk upon 
 the forms with guttural sk before guttural vowels, it may 
 finally be pointed out that sceal and sceal^ had palatal s^ 
 from the time of general diphthongization, scyle from some 
 period after z-umlaut, as soon as the y had had time to 
 palatalize the sk. The influence of scyle cannot be reck- 
 oned upon as an important factor. There was, however, 
 an extended period during which sceal, sceali, might have 
 exerted an influence, and indeed it seems highly probable 
 that their influence would have been felt in the plural of 
 the present at least, though, as suggested above, if these 
 forms influenced those with o and u materially, it would 
 seem as if the Aelfredian texts should show greater uni- 
 formity in indication of the glide before o, and not such 
 great disparity between the o and the u. However, to state 
 the matter in round terms, it is apparent in Aelfred that 
 the forms of sculan show the diphthongization of guttural 
 vowels by insertion of a glide to a markedly greater extent 
 than other words. The explanation of this fact reduces 
 itself merely to a matter of opinion, whether this is not 
 due to the greater relative frequency of use of the word, or 
 to the influence of the forms with palatal s% of the present 
 indicative working through to the plural, and so to the 
 infinitive. The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, 
 but general conditions seem to indicate that diphthongiza- 
 tion was merely developed earlier in this word owing to 
 frequency of use, and was not due to levelling in any great 
 measure, as the different degrees of development in Aelfred 
 of o and u correspond to the degrees of development in 
 other words in Aelfred, and in this and other words in the 
 later texts. 
 
 The change of sculon, sculan, to sceolon, sceolan, has 
 already been explained as due to difference of articulation, 
 according as the word is pronounced with the mouth-ori- 
 fice narrowed or opened, in a manner corresponding to 
 
io6 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 retention of u or its change to eo after _/". The diphthong 
 in these words accordingly remained presumably a rising 
 diphthong, though change to a falling diphthong may 
 have occurred incidentally in variant usage. This expla- 
 nation also accounts for the fact that u persists beside eo 
 in sculan^ and to a notable extent in other words, in all the 
 texts, including the latest. 
 
 To pass now to the forms with original e. 
 
 E is diphthongized to ie^ often reduced to «', y (pp. 31 f., 
 42, 55-57) 63). The examples are scieran^ scierseax, 
 scield^ scild^ beside sceld (2 cases in Orosius) ; various forms 
 oi gie/an^ gieldan, gielpan^ -gietan^ sdeldan ; giefol^ giofol^ 
 gifol; giefu^ gifu; giefan {donatoreni); -gield beside -geld 
 (i, Orosius); gielpi gilp^ beside ^^/^ (3, Orosius). 
 
 Diphthongization of e in the Aelfredian texts is, it will 
 be seen, regular, except for one or two cases, sceld^ g^ld, 
 gelp, in Orosius. These undiphthongized forms demand 
 special consideration, like those of cb, &, just discussed. 
 Biilbring {Elementarbuch., § 151) remarks that e is in great 
 part retained in the patois., and cites from the Harleian 
 Gloss the forms gelp., g^ld, gelde (sterile), ongeien, begetend, 
 together with the forms in the Orosius, just noted. To 
 these may be added seer an (36 cases in the Grammar in 
 all the manuscripts ; see Rehm, p. 21 f.) ; sceldan (3) beside 
 scyldan (7) in the Blickling Homilies; sceld in the Gram- 
 mar. Scere., Pentateuch., Genesis 38.12, cited by Rehm 
 as the dative of '■sceru\ does not belong here, but is a 
 monophthongized form of sceare from scearu; seer, vomis, 
 in the Grammar, similarly does not belong here. 
 
 There is a marked contrast in this list of cases of undiph- 
 thongized e to the record in the case of cb, which includes 
 only one form -g^^f, exclusive of those having sc. It is 
 also worthy of note that undiphthongized forms with e are 
 represented in an Aelfredian text, while this is not the case 
 with es, except as regards forms with sc. It seems sug- 
 
West Saxon. 107 
 
 gestive at first sight, though merely accidental, that only 
 the nouns g^eld, gelp., occur in Orosius undiphthongized 
 beside numerous forms with the verb, and that it is the 
 nouns that are found undiphthongized in the Harleian 
 Gloss. The possibility might be entertained that they 
 were umlaut forms ; Cosijn, it may be remarked, so classes 
 them, though remarking that they may better be classed 
 under the verb as having originals. Were they umlaut 
 forms, they might be explained as variants from *gtzld, *gcslp, 
 beside the normal gield, gielpi which in that case would 
 be from *geald^ *gealp. This is improbable, as variants 
 *gczld^ *gcBlp, would be expected, and it seems far-fetched 
 to call in here the occasional umlaut of ea to e (Biilbring, 
 Elemeniarbuch, § 179, note i). Moreover, the forms sceld, 
 gelde (sterile), ongeten, begetend, would remain unex- 
 plained. 
 
 The number of words represented in the list is really far 
 more significant than appears at first sight. The question 
 of the frequency of the appearance of such variants in the 
 standard speech depends upon the whole number of words 
 in the group to which they stand in the relation of vari- 
 ants, and also upon the frequency of use of individual words. 
 In the present case, the group is exceedingly small ; there 
 are none with c initial, or certainly none of frequent use, 
 and only a few with g^ namely those from the stems, ge/-^ 
 geld-, geld- (sterile), gelp-, g^t-i ^'^^ the loan-word giem, 
 gimm. Moreover, in the case of verbs, the whole tend- 
 ency is away from the e to ie, i (j), owing to the 2d and 
 3d person singular. The number of possible words to dis- 
 play variants is certainly few, yet of these we have evidence 
 of undiphthongized forms from every stem except in the 
 case of giem, and of gef-. Even in the case of gef-, it is 
 indeterminate whether the late forms geofan, etc., are from 
 gefan or gifan, while indeed the influence oigif-, function- 
 ing as a stem, and of gift upon "^gefii may be surmised to 
 
io8 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 have possibly had influence in precluding variants without 
 diphthongization. And, as remarked above, it is notable 
 that seven cases should occur in one Aelfredian text — two 
 cases of sceld beside scield^ scild ; two cases of gelp to two 
 oi gielp ; one case of -geld to fifteen of gield and five of 
 gild. There can be no question that the variation is his- 
 torical. The question which rises is, what was its cause, 
 and especially in view of the contrast displayed to the 
 forms with cb. This leads to a consideration of the time 
 at which diphthongization of e took place in West Saxon. 
 In the explanation of palatal diphthongization, it was 
 shown that diphthongization of e should theoretically 
 follow that of <z in point of time. Further, it is plain from 
 conditions in Northumbrian that this was the case ; though 
 the record shows that diphthongization of cs has advanced 
 to some extent, the e remains undiphthongized. This dif- 
 ference in time between the two diphthongizations must 
 hold for West Saxon, where both took place. How great 
 the interval was between the two, it is impossible to say. 
 The date of the diphthongization of ^, it is difficult to 
 determine. A criterion seems at first sight to be afforded by 
 the apparent precedence of u-o umlaut as noted by Sievers 
 (§ 76, note 3), who cites geolo, geoloca, ceole^ ceorian^ with 
 giefu unaffected because of the oblique form, giefe, but 
 with geofu recorded in texts not pure West Saxon. But 
 Biilbring's view (Elementarbuch^ § 253 ; compare also 
 Anglia Beiblatt^ 11,103) ^^ undoubtedly the correct one, 
 that eo in such cases in West Saxon is from io^ and that 
 this io is the u-o umlaut of ie by diphthongization. The 
 unchanged io appears in giofol (2) beside gt/ol (i) in the 
 Cura Pastor alts, the eo in ceoridp in the Orosius. 142.7 
 (Cosijn, p. 39)'. 
 
 1 Biilbring's suggestion, it maybe added, that ofergioUullnisso (i) 
 beside ofergeotolnisse, ofergeatul (i each) in the Ritual, ofergeotol in 
 Lindisfarne, may be due to the same development on the strength of the 
 
West Saxon. 109 
 
 The only possible approacli to a determination of the 
 date of the diphthongization of e is afforded by that of the 
 diphthongization of <^. The difficulties involved in the 
 ■whole question are apparent, and it can merely at best be 
 treated speculatively, but even probabilities or possibilities 
 are helpful, or even demonstrably false conclusions, if later 
 discussion is helpful that proves them so. 
 
 Diphthongization of tz is usually held to have taken 
 place before ^-umlaut. But at what interval ? The single 
 necessary associated change is that of a to ^. This change, 
 which began on the Continent, seems to have been still in 
 progress after the invasion, since Latin words, first adopted 
 in England, appear with cs from a, mere substitution of cs 
 for a being improbable (compare Chadwick, Studies in Old 
 English., p. 166 ; Biilbring, Elementarbuch., § 92). What 
 extent of progress the affection had made at the time of the 
 invasion, it is probably impossible to discover, /-umlaut, 
 on the other hand, was certainly concluded before the close 
 of the 7th century. It seems probable that it was still 
 operative during the century on the evidence of glcBsan., 
 later glisan, from L. glossa, as it is difficult to believe the 
 umlaut merely . functional, a possibility Pogatscher enter- 
 tains in his article on the subject in the Beitrage^ 18,467. 
 In Anglian, the e-umlaut precedes palatal umlaut, which 
 is set by Chadwick (p. 117) even before 650, and as the 
 umlaut was a change of long gestation and therefore prob^ 
 ably took place at about the same time in all dialects 
 (though with effects somewhat dissimilar), it may be con- 
 cluded that in West Saxon also the affection had largely 
 run its course by the first half of the century, and that its 
 inception is to be referred to the 6th century. At some 
 period previous to its inception, diphthongization of ce in 
 West Saxon is held to have taken place. 
 
 exceptional sci{e)ppend, does not recommend itself, owing to the im- 
 probability of the development of a wholly isolated ie after g. The 
 single case with to is due to interchange of eo and to. 
 
no Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 It is apparent at once that a comparatively brief period 
 is left between the change of a to ce and the inception of 
 the umlaut, even if the inception of the umlaut is set at 
 the beginning of the yth century — barely more, indeed, 
 than a hundred years. This suggests at once that the 
 diphthongization must have closely preceded the umlaut. 
 The changes involved in the process, whatever view be 
 taken of its nature, preclude the supposition of its hav- 
 ing proceeded with rapidity. The palatalization of the 
 consonant and the formation of the diphthong are to be 
 considered, and it is also to be remembered that the diph- 
 thong produced must have had time to settle into stable 
 form. The striking uniformity of the cases with umlaut 
 attests this, and also the result of the umlaut, namely ie. 
 This result is only possible on the supposition that the 
 diphthong was already, before umlaut, ea, with a marked 
 difference of quality between its two elements. In this case, 
 a series of coordinate changes could take place, preserving 
 a difference of quality and so producing te. Otherwise, 
 monophthongization would have resulted, as in the case of 
 ?-umlaut and palatal umlaut of iza in Anglian. These 
 considerations render it improbable that the process of diph- 
 thongization could have been completed in a short space 
 of time. On the other hand, it is to be remembered also 
 that the diphthongization was an individual feature of West 
 Saxon. To assume an early diphthongization for other 
 dialects necessitates supposing Mercian to have been an 
 entire exception in contrast with its close congener, North- 
 umbrian, and Northumbrian to have had a diphthongiza- 
 tion of the narrowest possible range (for which there is no 
 true evidence) followed by a later sporadic diphthongiza- 
 tion in the loth century. This fact in itself renders 
 an early date before z-umlaut unlikely, and tends also to 
 enforce the argument drawn from the fact that the com- 
 pletion of the diphthongization must have demanded a 
 relatively extended period of time. 
 
West Saxon. iii 
 
 This conclusion in regard to the diphthongization of iz 
 affects that of e, in that the latter is to be held as having 
 taken place at a later date. One possibility is that the 
 diphthongization of e took place close after that of ts, but 
 still before /-umlaut, but that it was carried through less 
 completely. The other is that the diphthongization of iS 
 immediately preceded, and that of e coincided in point of 
 time with, the umlaut. In considering these possibilities, 
 it must be kept in mind that the (f shows undiphthong- 
 ized forras in the record only in ^^ excluding the special 
 group with sc, while in the case of e forms from practically 
 all the stems involved appear undiphthongized, five cases 
 appearing in an Aelfredian text. Of the two possibilities, 
 the second is the more probable. The first necessitates 
 supposing an exceedingly rapid affection. That e should 
 be less affected than tz could be due only to the resistance 
 offered by it, or to a dying out of the tendency. But diph- 
 thongization of e is carried out consistently, as far as the 
 range of forms is concerned, and therefore the e offered no 
 other resistance than that which caused its diphthongiza- 
 tion to be later than that of (s, while to assume a dying 
 out of the tendency before the time of z-umlaut necessi- 
 tates supposing the period of change of e limited to a very 
 brief period. The second supposition, on the other hand, 
 places no limitation on the period of the affection as regards 
 its inception or its completion, and permits the assumption 
 that it followed upon that of <^ after an indeterminate 
 interval and took place at a time when the affection was 
 dying out, and that therefore diphthongized and undiph- 
 thongized forms remained beside each other. 
 
 It is perhaps worth while, in passing, to note a possibil- 
 ity suggested by the fact that, exclusive of those with sc, 
 all the undiphthongized variants, not only with e, but also 
 those with ^ and the single case ^^ae/vfith. ae, begin with 
 ^ and not with c. It is not impossible that the spirant £■ 
 
113 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 may have developed during palatalization not only to the 
 value i, but also to a value y, like that of original /, and 
 that in such cases diphthongization naturally did not 
 follow. This suggestion is not susceptible of proof. It 
 ■would, to be sure, explain the whole range of undiphthong- 
 ized variants other than those with sc. But, on the other 
 hand, the cases with e after sc would be left without expla- 
 nation, as one must hesitate to suppose that si devel- 
 oped so early, as the period of the diphthongization of 
 either ce or e. 
 
 In this discussion, it has been assumed, in accordance 
 with the usual view, that diphthongization of (b took place 
 before i^umlaut. This is regarded, apparently with reason, 
 as a fixed and certain fact ; the reader will remember the 
 manner in which Biilbring reminded Dieter of it in his 
 article in Anglia Beiblatt^ 9,80. It is never unprofitable, 
 however, to examine views long accepted and to test their 
 validity. What briefly is the evidence for this view ? It 
 rests on four points : (i) the fact that secondary palatals 
 are not diphthongized ; (2) the fact that the assumed um- 
 laut of ea by palatal diphthongization parallels the umlaut 
 of ea by breaking and of ^a ; (3) the evidence aflforded by 
 *dese ; (4) the fact that u-o umlaut was preceded by pala- 
 tal diphthongization'. 
 
 I. To the first point, the following answer may be made. 
 The fact that secondary palatals are not diphthongized is 
 of no force for the reason that the words with secondary 
 palatals are all cases in which the vowel and there- 
 fore the consonant before it were guttural before the um- 
 laut ; these secondary palatals were from pre-nasal a, d 
 {<Caz), o, d, and also some few cases of ordinary a by lev- 
 elling and probably before consonant combinations. To 
 affect diphthongization after umlaut, the consonant would 
 
 "Biilbring adduces {Anglia Beiblatt, 11.88 ff. ) six criteria, of which 
 I, 2-3-4-5, 6 correspond to 3, i, and 4, respectively. 
 
West Saxon. 
 
 113 
 
 have had to go through the same process of change as the 
 consonant which had stood before a palatal vowel from 
 an early period. Assuming post-umlaut diphthongization 
 hypothetically, we should have unumlauted forms with 
 CB (for example) with consonants which had stood before 
 a palatal vowel since drca 500, some two hundred years. 
 The consonants standing before newly made palatal vow- 
 els can hardly be expected instantly to have become pala- 
 tal and to have diphthongized the vowels, and it is easily 
 conceivable that the affection long prepared in the case of 
 the forms with <^, ^ (< West Germanic d) and ^, could 
 take place after umlaut and the tendency to diphthongiza- 
 tion disappear before the consonants which stood before 
 secondary palatal vowels had acquired the necessary palatal 
 quality to affect diphthongization. 
 
 Furthermore, the nature of the secondary palatal vowels 
 is to be considered. It is impossible to say that the ce from 
 pre-nasal a was precisely similar to ordinary tz — that it 
 might not have been approximately oe, or indeed whether 
 the umlaut was not ce itself. There seems reason to believe 
 that the umlaut vowel was ce before it became e, and prac- 
 tical similarity was assumed in the discussion of sciendan 
 above, but such similarity cannot be regarded as positively 
 certain. Hence its ability to diphthongize for a long 
 period is doubtful. The final result in any case from this 
 vowel and from o, 6, is an e sound, and this sound is less 
 susceptible to diphthongization than the cb. The quality 
 of the & from d is also not certain ; it may have been so 
 little palatal as not to have provided the necessary con- 
 ditions for diphthongization at all. 
 
 2. As regards the second point, that the umlaut, as 
 assumed, of ea by diphthongization, parallels that of ea by 
 breaking and of ia from au, the obvious fact may be 
 pointed out that this may be only a coincidence. The e 
 by umlaut (assuming no pre-umlaut diphthongization) 
 8 
 
114 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 might as well have diphthongized, along with and like 
 original e, to ie. 
 
 3. The third point has reference to *dese. The argu- 
 ment here is a very clear one. This Latin loan-word must 
 have had the pre-umlaut form *cSsi. As & does not change 
 by umlaut, the ie of the recorded form can only come from 
 a pre-umlaut diphthongized form *c^asi. No example 
 could be more beautifully conclusive than this — it was 
 originally adduced by Sievers, Beitrdge^ 9,206 — and Biil- 
 bring, in writing upon the subject, rightly lays stress upon 
 it. But where a single word is concerned, there cannot be 
 entire confidence. Indeed, a certain doubt takes form and 
 substance when it is considered that the word is found in 
 the requisite form only in one of the Charters (Birch, II. 
 107.2, presumably the third quarter of the 9th century) and 
 in Aelfric's Colloquy .^ 91. It may be noted in passing that 
 the word is quoted by both Sievers and Biilbring as ciese 
 (unstarred) ; where this form is recorded is not apparent — 
 the recorded forms are Kentish c&se^ c&se, and in pure 
 West Saxon cyse. All this however is by way of sug- 
 gestion. The only three possibilities which would destroy 
 the value of the word as evidence are : (a) that the word 
 might have umlauted to i in West Saxon, in which case 
 it could have been diphthongized in common with the other 
 words after umlaut ; (b) that it in some way had a short 
 vowel before «-umlaut ; or (c) that the form with y was 
 Kentish with y for I, hence that the true West Saxon form 
 might have been *ciase. No one of these suppositions, 
 except the first, recommends itself as even remotely pos- 
 sible. 
 
 4. The fourth point has reference to the fact that palatal 
 diphthongization preceded u-o umlaut. Biilbring {Anglia 
 Beiblatt^ ii)94) in citing this as a proof must certainly 
 have intended merely to strengthen his argument by gen- 
 eral probability. He himself sets the z-umlaut in the close 
 
West Saxon. 115 
 
 of the 6th and beginning of the 7th century. The u-o 
 umlaut was in its inception at the beginning of the 8th. 
 The advocate for diphthongization subsequent to ^-umlaut 
 would merely refer it to the period between the two affec- 
 tions. It is also to be remembered that the single dialect 
 in question is the West Saxon, and the period at which u-o 
 umlaut took place in this dialect is quite in doubt. The 
 u-o umlaut of e {a naturally does not come into considera- 
 tion) may have occurred late in the 8th century. And the 
 question in regard to forms like giofol, giotan^ etc., with 
 variants, geotan, etc., referred to above, may perfectly as 
 well have been due to concurrence of the two aflfections as 
 to later change of to to eo. 
 
 On this showing, the argument for diphthongization 
 anterior to «-umlaut reduces itself to the single, and so far 
 as present knowledge permits judgment, the irrefragible 
 evidence of *ciese, cyse. An item of additional evidence, 
 possibly, is the apparently neat conformity of the group of 
 unumlauted forms with ea and the umlauted forms with 
 ie. Both groups are remarkable for the consistency with 
 which the aflfections are carried through. Had the umlaut 
 forms been diphthongized at the same time as e (which 
 would presumably have been the case, if the diphthongiza- 
 tion occurred after umlaut), variation of diphthongized and 
 undiphthongized forms might have been expected as in 
 the case of e. 
 
 Though precedence of diphthongization to umlaut must 
 be accepted, it is of interest to consider the results if the 
 evidence of cyse were proved false, and the diphthong- 
 ization could hypothetically be set after the umlaut. In 
 this case the difl&culty in respect to the date of the 
 z'-umlaut would be removed, as regards the completeness 
 with which the diphthongization of cb must be supposed to 
 have been carried through in the brief period before the 
 umlaut. The development of the changes in detail would 
 
ii6 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 oiFer no difficulties. Some such order and chronology as 
 the following would be possible : (i) diphthongization of 
 is toward the middle of the 8th century ; (3) of & (from 
 West Germanic d\ of original «, and of e from es by umlaut, 
 towards the close of the 8th century ; and (3) of tz, &, e, 
 from a, pre-nasal a, ^, o, d, by umlaut, after /I, at approxi- 
 mately the same time. Judging from analogy, words hav- 
 ing secondary vowels from a, d, o, d, after c, g^ would have 
 diphthongized during the 9th century, but by this time the 
 affection, already on the wane at the time of the diphthong- 
 ization of ^, would have ceased. 
 
 One special point in favor of the hypothesis of post- 
 umlaut diphthongization is the fact that it brings together 
 the original diphthongization and the diphthongization of 
 secondary palatal vowels after sc. Since the latter must in 
 any case be dated about the middle or latter part of the 
 8th century on the evidence of sciendan, scyndan, the; 
 difference in time between the two diphthongizations, 
 according to the current view, offers a certain difficulty, 
 especially if a waning of the influence is assumed at the 
 time e was diphthongized. This is, to be sure, met by 
 taking into account the special influence of j in the com- 
 bination sc, giving it the necessary quality to produce 
 diphthongization, which the c and the g before secondarj"- 
 palatal vowel did not attain. But the relation it is pos- 
 sible to assume on the hypothesis of post-umlaut diph- 
 thongization is intrinsically more probable, for the diph- 
 thongization of (s and the diphthongization of secondary 
 palatal vowels would then have taken place at approxi- 
 mately equal intervals after the change of a to <^ and after 
 z-umlaut respectively. The current view must stand, how- 
 ever. Whatever incidental merits the hypothesis of post- 
 laut diphthongization may seem to possess, it remains 
 purely speculative and of no force, so long as the testi- 
 mony of cyse is not proved false. 
 
West Saxon., 117 
 
 A brief statement of the possible development of West 
 Saxou diphthougization is as follows : 
 
 1. Dipbthongization of <^ took place before i-umlaut 
 and was probably completed just before its inception. The 
 affection, judging from the record, was carried through 
 consistently, the only exceptions, definitely recognizable, 
 being forms with sk which preserved sk by influence of 
 related forms, its retention being attested by the later 
 development of such as underwent umlaut. 
 
 2. Diphthougization of ^ and of e followed, at a period 
 in part probably coincident with that of «-umlaut, and 
 probably at a time when the affection was on the wane, as 
 variants without diphthongization occur in both groups, 
 and are in evidence in the record. 
 
 3. The ea from ^ by diphthongization was umlauted to 
 te. The forms with sk (see i) persisted, until sk itself 
 began to yield under influence of the s. 
 
 4. Secondary ^, e, did not possess the power in them- 
 selves to palatalize a preceding guttural. In the case of sc, 
 diphthongization of secondary palatal vowels was produced, 
 owing to influence of the s, and those forms also were diph- 
 thongized which had retained sk by influence of related 
 forms. In both cases, variants without diphthongization 
 remained by a development in the patois of s£^ beside j>?, 
 which united with the palatal vowel following, precluding 
 diphthongization. Certain of these became the preferred 
 forms in the literary dialect, for example sceppan and scen- 
 can^i while scendan is almost as common as sciendan. On 
 the testimony of sciendan^ this change is to be placed after 
 circa 725, when cb (or ce) became e. It may be referred to 
 the close of the 8th century. 
 
 5. The influence of j upon k (^) in the combination sk^ 
 discerned in change 4, ultimately affected the sk standing 
 before guttural vowels. This passed from the stage si to 
 sly the guttural vowels inhibiting transition of / to the 
 
ii8 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 palatal spirant. This change may be referred to the first 
 part of the 9th century. It resulted ultimately in the inser- 
 tion of a glide before the vowels, a, o, u, which were 
 affected in succession, the progress of the affection being 
 discernible in the texts from Aelfred to the Gospels. The 
 diphthong is a true diphthong, a fact attested by change 
 of u to eo. The manner of the use of the e also attests 
 this. It appears with increasing frequency in the succes- 
 sive texts and before the several vowels in proper order. 
 This indicates increased use of an actual speech sound. 
 The fact that scea stands beside sea and sceo beside sco in 
 the same words does not mean that sif and sk were used 
 side by side in pronunciation, and it is not possible that 
 the scribe would use a somewhat artificial orthographic 
 expedient at one time and not at another — ^while he might 
 well at one time indicate a glide and at another leave it 
 unmarked. 
 
 Consideration may now be given to the forms with orig- 
 naiy. 
 
 i: in the proper nouns lesuslause (-p. 182); leremias ; 
 muni lof^ Iqfeses, lobeses ; ludeas^ ludan^ etc. ; also in iu 
 (pp. 74, 182). io ; iung (p. 74), iong^ iungan (p. 182)/ 
 iugup (p. 74), iugupe (p. 182). 
 
 ge, gi: geonre (p. 55) ; geond (pp. 56,57), giend, gind, 
 begeondan, begiondan ; git (p. ^(i)i gitt^ giit (p. 56); gii^ 
 (P- l^^gi^; geogop (p. 1\),gioguj> (-) (pp. 74, 75, 183), giu- 
 g-upi-X^p. 74, 182,); geong {-)(pp. 74, 18^), gwng{-),gmng{-), 
 geongrena (p. i83),^zo«^r (-) (pp. 78, xZ^), gingra (p. 78), 
 gingest {p. jS) •■, Geoweorpa(^p. 75,182) ;^20^/><a! (pp. 78,183), 
 gicpa (p. 78), giecpa ; gebmorlic (pp. 83, 182^^ ge6mriende 
 (p. 83) ; gtar (-) (pp. 84, 85), '^i«r (-),'^^r(-)(p. 85), 'gkr ;' 
 geoc- (p. 183), gioke ; Gesaphat {p. 182); Giethro, Githro. 
 
 g: ge-ge (p. 182) ;^^ (pron.) (II, p. 105). 
 
 These forms have for the most part been already dis- 
 cussed. Io and iongum may be noted as having e, but 
 
West Saxon. 119 
 
 with original u changed to o, and may be added to the 
 forms, hitherto noted, which preclude supposing that the 
 spelling with t indicates the absence of a diphthong. The 
 foreign name Giethro might seem at first sight evidence 
 that i was used simply to mark the value of the g^ but it 
 is in fact evidence of precisely the contrary fact as the var- 
 iant Githro shows. The name Iethro-^3& r^2Aji&thro^ and 
 spelled Giethro and Githro. losaphat was x^zAjeosaphaty 
 and written Gesaphat^ perhaps negligently, perhaps owing 
 simply to confusion in the case of a foreign word. 
 
 Gi&t beside git has always offered difficulty. The 
 normal development would have been simply to *j<et., but 
 the pronunciation of this in the je or ji position is prac- 
 tically impossible. The simplest supposition is that the 
 word assumed the form ^jit^ and then with widening of 
 the mouth and retraction of the lips assumed the form 
 gi^ty the j approximating in that position to ^. Here, as 
 before «<, the articulation of the / would vary, and when 
 pronounced in the ji position, gtt would result from giH 
 by merging of e and i. 
 
 This word serves to illustrate how different the true/ is 
 from the ^. If it had been like the /, the original ^jcBt 
 would have developed to *giaty or by monophthongization, 
 *git. Neither form occurs, and development of ^giet^ git, 
 from the latter is of course impossible. 
 
 The fact of this difference may be kept in mind in con- 
 sidering the word g^ar. It is usually referred to an 
 original *7'^r, but this offers difficulty, as properly/ should 
 not diphthongize a palatal vowel, and the place of articu- 
 lation of the vowel in question is not such as to render 
 introduction of a glide probable, when the / is pronounced 
 with the mouth widened. Further, the modern English 
 yore has to be kept in mind as presupposing a rising diph- 
 thong. It seems necessary, accordingly, to assume an 
 original *jdr through influence of the plural forms (see the 
 
I20 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 discussion above, p. 8i). The development to *gedr is 
 then regular, and this form, through influence of the com- 
 mon falling diphthong ^a, ^a, became g&ar. Gedra, func- 
 tioning as an adverb, became separated from its primary 
 and retained its rising diphthong, whence modern yore. 
 
 Geong, geogupy geoc, show the change of iu to eo due to 
 articulation with opening of the mouth and retraction of 
 the lips. The diphthong remains a rising diphthong. 
 Geoc became the preferred form, whence modern yoke. 
 Geong may or may not have become the preferred form, 
 as Middle English yung may have developed from yong, 
 or might have developed from giung retained beside 
 geong. 
 
 The date of the diphthongization caused by/, it is diffi- 
 cult or impossible to determine. It may or may not have 
 taken place, in West Saxon, at the same time as that after 
 g. It is quite possible that it took place earlier and at 
 approximately the same time in all dialects, as the affection 
 is identical in character in all. 
 
VI. 
 CONCI^USION. 
 
 It is not necessary, in conclusion, to give a detailed 
 summary of the points discussed, but merely to emphasize 
 those of special importance. Special studies of this nature 
 must necessarily contain, as regards detail at least, much 
 that is merely tentative and simply offered for criticism, a 
 review of which is hardly possible without reopening argu- 
 ment. But the view taken of general conditions may be 
 summarized in such a way as to indicate the leading points 
 of the argument, to unify the results reached in regard to 
 the separate dialects, and to emphasize points of specula- 
 tive importance. 
 
 The first point of importance is the necessity of separat- 
 ing absolutely the Anglian dialects, and it is safe probably 
 to add the Kentish, from the West Saxon. This was not 
 clearly recognized at the time the study was first under- 
 taken ; it is prettj' generally recognized to-day, but by no 
 means with so complete an understanding of its bearings 
 and results as is probably justified. A recognition of this 
 fact serves at once to bring the several dialects into con- 
 sistent relation. Early and general diphthongization was 
 exclusively a West Saxon character. The supposition of 
 a general tendency is contradicted by the Mercian in which 
 there is no diphthongization, while in Northumbrian it 
 would involve supposing an affection of extremely limited 
 range, affecting only cs^ and only sporadically, followed in 
 the loth century by a later sporadic affection. There is 
 no evidence of a general tendency. The cases of pure 
 diphthongization in Northumbrian are all to be referred to 
 a late, partial, and sporadic affection, evidenced to be such 
 by the nature of the record in the loth century texts. In 
 Mercian, any possible tendency toward a similar late diph- 
 
 (121) 
 
123 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects 
 
 thongization was precluded by the fact that its ez was 
 heightened to e, and was therefore immune to the affection, 
 just as e was in Northumbrian. 
 
 The diphthongization of ^ in West Saxon is to be 
 referred to the period before i^umlaut, but this conclusion, 
 it is to be remembered, depends upon the single testimony 
 of the word cyse, and may have to be given up if some 
 other explanation is offered for it than the apparent one. 
 Certain special diphthongizations followed. These involve 
 the second point of general importance, the special devel- 
 opment of sk. 
 
 The combination sk was especially susceptible to palatal- 
 ization through the influence of the s. Owing to this 
 influence, it tended to palatalize independently of the 
 following vowel. Also, it might develop either to si or to 
 the unitary sound sif (pronounced approximately like the 
 sk in skoe) ; the latter might develop by variation before 
 palatal vowels, and it necessarily developed before guttural 
 vowels, which precluded development to jI. The sound 
 s^, being purely palatal, and a direct development from s^, 
 did not, when developed before palatals, cause diphthong- 
 ization. The results of this special diphthongization of 
 sk are seen in West Saxon and in Northumbrian. In the 
 West Saxon, it evidenced itself in the diphthongization of 
 secondary palatal vowels, and of such variant forms with 
 primary palatals as had retained sk by influence of related 
 forms. Owing to the development of sf beside si in 
 words having palatal vowels, variants without diphthong- 
 ization appear beside the normal forms with diphthong- 
 ization. This affection took place after 735, presumably 
 in the second half of the century. In Northumbrian 
 it took place at the same time, and is the starting-point of 
 such diphthongization as there was. In northern Nor- 
 thumbrian, it caused the diphthongization of primary (S, 
 and exceptionally of secondary ^, <^, extending to e, S in 
 
Conclusion. 123 
 
 the exceptional cases sdp and sci{e)ppend; variant forms 
 also appeared without diphthongization, owing to develop- 
 ment of sH. In southern Northumbrian, primary cb, was 
 diphthongized, but secondary tz^ ^ escaped the affection 
 owing to previous extension of si. In Mercian, diphthong- 
 ization by sk is prevented by the change of <^ to £, as in 
 the case of k and g. 
 
 Sk before guttural vowels developed to sH^ as noted, in 
 consequence of the influence of the j, the change being 
 part of the same change as enabled the sc before secondary 
 palatal vowels to diphthongize those vowels. This change 
 before guttural vowels occurred in the beginning of the 
 9th century, and towards the middle or close of the 
 century the palatal si which resulted caused the introduc- 
 tion of a glide before the guttural vowels, producing rising 
 diphthongs. The progress of the affection may be traced 
 in the Aelfredian texts. In Northumbrian, the extension 
 of the affection to a and o is indicated by frequent occur- 
 rence of the diphthong in the record. In Mercian, in the 
 single text sufiiciently late to exhibit it, RushworM^ it does 
 not appear, owing possibly to influence of Scandinavian sk. 
 Emphasis may be laid in connexion with this sound upon 
 the importance of recognizing that the e inserted after si 
 was a true glide and not merely an indication of palatal 
 quality of the sL Rehm {Die Palatalisierung der Gruppe 
 p. 53), after recording the cases with sc in typical texts, 
 states without demonstration that his lists prove the e 
 after sc only a palatal glide or indicator of palatal quality, 
 not a true diphthongal element. The lists on the contrary 
 seem to prove exactly the reverse. The continuous increase 
 in the use of the e in the successive West Saxon texts and 
 before the various vowels in the order to be theoretically 
 expected, indicates increased use of a new speech element. 
 And the change of u to eo can only be explained on the 
 supposition of an actual diphthong. 
 
124 Palatalization in the Old English Dialects. 
 
 A similar question rises in the case of the J. Biilbring, 
 as noted above, considers that in some cases the e or i 
 following may be a true diphthongal glide, in others a 
 mere indicator of quality. The endeavor has been made 
 to show that it invariably represents a diphthongal element. 
 In regard to / in general, it has been pointed out that the 
 development after/ is not to be considered on a parity with 
 that of g in accordance with the prevailing view. / was 
 a palatal per se, and not a developed palatal. It did not 
 therefore cause diphthongization of palatal vowels, but 
 caused introduction of a glide before guttural vowels. 
 The view was also advanced that in the case of bothy and 
 sc, there were two different modes of articulation. The 
 prevailing mode was with the mouth narrowed, the sounds 
 approximating to y, sk, in you, shoe. They could also be 
 pronounced with the mouth opened and lips retracted 
 owing to the influence of a back consonant following the 
 vowel, or a guttural vowel in the next syllable. To this 
 second mode of articulation, the change of u (tu) to eo is 
 due, and the u and eo remain beside each other in the 
 record even in late texts, owing to the use of both modes 
 of articulation. The affection caused by / was general 
 West Saxon ; it appears also in Mercian when other palatal 
 diphthongization does not take place. The affection is 
 similar in all. It is not possible to determine its date, but 
 it was probably early ; it is not necessary to assume that it 
 occurred at the same time in all the dialects, though this 
 probably was the case. It appears in all the dialects to 
 have preceded z-umlaut. 
 
 A point of subordinate importance but of some special 
 interest in connexion with / is the explanation offered of 
 the spelling i as representing not / simply, but consonant 
 plus diphthongal element. 
 
 It may be added, in closing, that the study of palatal 
 diphthongization will be best advanced, in the direction 
 
Conclusion. 125 
 
 of confirmation or rejection of tlie solutions offered for its 
 various diflScult and perplexing problems, by a detailed 
 study of dialectal conditions in Middle English. This is 
 already assured — a special reason why the writer, for one, 
 looks forward with anticipation to the conclusion of Mors- 
 bach's Mittelenglishe Grammatik. 
 
INDEX 
 
 [The forms included are those having initial guttural and palatal 
 consonants. The classification is by stem-syllables without reference 
 to prefixes.] 
 
 Cmdualla, see Ceadualla 
 ccef, see ceaf 
 ccBster, see ceaster 
 ccEJertun, see ceafortun 
 
 c^g, 74 
 
 ccBrran, see cierran 
 
 gecafstrod, 73, 74 
 
 cald, see ceald 
 
 calend, 73 
 
 calf, see cealf 
 
 calic, 18, 21 
 
 camel, 21 
 
 carbunculus, 73, 74 
 
 carcern (ea), 21, 73, 74 
 
 carr, 18, 21 
 
 corw, see cearu 
 
 Ceadualla ((b), 29 
 
 cea/ (ffi), II, 12, 58, 74 
 
 ceafortun {as), 28, 29, 55, 56 
 
 ceaful, 56 
 
 cea/d (o), 18 
 
 cealf (a), 18 
 
 cearcern, see carcern 
 
 cearu (a), 73, 74 
 
 ceaster (ce, e), 19, 22, 24, 29, 30, 
 
 58, 69, 70, 74 
 gec^lan, 74, 97 
 cele, see «e/e 
 cempa, 13, 22 
 ancend, 19, 22 
 cennise, 22 
 ceofe, 108 
 ceorian, 108 
 cerran, see cierran 
 cise, see cyj^ 
 cester, see ceaster 
 
 ciefes, 74 
 
 «We (j», 74, 75,95,96 
 cierran (y,i, e, cb),, 13, 22 
 cyrran, see cierran 
 cyse (^, <b), II, 112, 114 
 
 gad(e)rian (ce, ea) and allied 
 
 forms, 19, 22, 27, 29, 30, 55, 58, 
 
 68,73, 74 
 g(E/o/, see ga/o/ 
 g(ggM (g^w, g^ow, g^»), 18, 21-25, 
 
 30, 58, 61, 69, 74 
 Gcenhald, 71 
 g&sne (ia) , 96-98 
 gcBst, see gj'^rf 
 gcBstlic, 20 
 giKi (ea), 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 46 
 
 J5, 58, 68-70, 73 
 g&i, 20 
 gafol {cB, ea), 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 58, 
 
 62, 68, 73, 74 
 
 gas°h 73 
 galga, 18 
 gdn, 20, 22 
 55. ?^ (conj.), 61, 118 
 
 gS, pron. and adv. see gie 
 geadrian and allied forms, see 
 
 gad{e)rian 
 geafol, see gafol 
 gSamrung, see gedmrung 
 g^ar (^), II, 15, 21, 23, 48, 52, 56, 
 
 67, 71, 72, 118, 120 
 ge&ra (i&ra), 59, 61, 120 
 geard (e), 13, 22 
 gearwian (iarw-) and allied forms, 
 
 13, 16, 60, 61 
 
 (127) 
 
128 
 
 Index. 
 
 geasne, see gmsne 
 
 geatum (-geatwum) , 23, 46 
 
 gegerelad, 22 
 
 gegierela (e), 13, 22 
 
 gelde, 106, 107 
 
 g^mrung, see gedmrung 
 
 gende, 19 
 
 ged (gii, {■&), 59, 118 
 
 geoc (toe), 16, 21, 36, 37, 47, S9. 
 
 60, 67, 71, 118, 120 
 geogup (io, i), 21, 23, 34, 47-5°. 
 
 56, 59,71. 118, 120 
 geolo, 108 
 geoloca, io8 
 geomorlic, 118 
 geomrian, 118 
 gedmrung (^o, I), 56, 57 
 
 i, 48, 49. 52. 56- 57. 61. 67, 118 
 da(te,ea), 23, 31, 47-52, 61. 
 
 118 
 geone, 23, 48, 51, 71 
 geong {giung, iung, iong, etc.), n, 
 
 16, 21, 23, 36, 47-5°, 52. 56, 
 
 59, 118, 120 
 geongan, 21 
 geonre, 118 
 
 (-)geotol(-) , see {-)gitol{-) 
 Geoweorpa, 118 
 glr, see g^ar 
 gerd, see geard 
 Gesaphat, 118, 119 
 ge5i, see gjVi/ 
 
 g^i(iej), 23,48,52, 56, 118, 119 
 -getan, see -gietan 
 i-)getol(-), see {-)gitol{-) 
 gte (pronoun; also gi, gee, gi, gS, 
 
 etc.), 21, 23, 48, 52, 56, 61, 118 
 gie (adverb ; also gS, gee, etc.) ,21, 
 
 23, 48, 52, 61 
 giecpa (io, i), 118 
 gied, 12 
 g«W/a, 106 
 giefan (i, eo), 11, 13, 19-22, 24, 
 
 25, 30. 31, 44, 47, 58, 68, 70, 74, 
 
 95,98, 106, 107, III 
 
 giefol (io), II, 58, 106, 108, 1x5 
 
 giefu (i), 20, 68, 69, 106-108 
 
 gield, 69, 106, 108 
 
 gielp (e, y) , 106-108 
 
 gieldan (y), 22, 56, 106 
 
 gielpan (y), 14, 106, 107 
 
 giem, 107 
 
 giend, see geond 
 
 begienda, see begeonda 
 
 giest (as, e, y) , 74, 84, 95, 96 
 
 g'^et, see git 
 
 -gietan (e), 11, 18, 20, 25, 31, 55, 
 
 58, 62, 68, 70, 74, 106, 107, 115 
 Gie thro (i), 118, 119 
 
 gif, 25. 56 
 gifan, see giefan 
 forgifnis, 20 
 gift, 20, 107 
 gifu, see giefu 
 gigop, see geogup 
 ging, see geong 
 onginnan, 18 
 giofol, see giefol 
 giogup, see geogup 
 giong, see geong 
 ongiotan, see -gietan 
 git, see g#i 
 (-)gito/(-),io8 
 giululing, 67 
 giung, see geong 
 gil, see gg5 
 gy/d, 22, 31 
 gyldan, see gieldan 
 gylpan, see gielpan 
 gyst, see g«>5i 
 
 *(Jra, see gedra 
 
 iarwian, etc., see gearwian 
 
 leremias, 118 
 
 lesuslause, 118 
 
 ioc, see geoc 
 
 7o/ (lofeses, lobeses), n8 
 
 iowg, see geong 
 
 ludan (ludeas), 118 
 
 *<l, see gg^ 4 
 
Index. 
 
 129 
 
 iung, see geong 
 iwocc, see geoc 
 
 Jaegnlaad 7 1 
 
 Jaemberhtus {Jaen-, etc.), 71 
 
 kihies, 74, 97 
 
 scacan, see sceacan 
 
 scafan, see sceafan 
 
 scaf(e)pa (<z, e) , 75-77, 85, 86 
 
 scceft, see sceaft 
 
 sccBJpa, see scaj(e) pa 
 
 gesccsp, see gesceap 
 
 sccep, see sciap 
 
 scappan, see scieppan 
 
 sc&r, see 5Cgar 
 
 scalu, 86 
 
 scamian, see sceomian 
 
 scamu, see sceomu 
 
 scdn, see 5c<?dM 
 
 scand, see sceond 
 
 scaru, see scearu 
 
 sceaba, 62 
 
 sceabb, 74, 76, 99 
 
 sceacan (a), 13, 18, 22, 32, 37, 40, 
 
 41,45- 56, 58, 59. 75, 86,88 
 sciacere (ea) , 22, 23, 32, 38, 40 
 jcead (<e), 58, 59, 62, 95, 97 
 gesciad (d), 77, 85, 87 
 sceddan, 21, 22, 45, 58, 59, 69, 71, 
 
 77, 85-88 
 sceadu (a), 62, 65, 66, 69, 74, 86,97 
 sceadwian and related forms, 76, 
 
 86 
 sceafan (a), 86, 88, 99 
 gesceaft (cs),iS, 22, 32, 39, 41, 43, 
 
 69, 74,76, 77.84,93,95. 97 
 sceaga (a), 69-71 
 
 sceamol (a, «, eo), 19, 58, 76, 87, 88 
 scean, 19, 21 
 
 scedn (a), 21-23, 3^, 37, 41, 58, 87 
 scianan (®, I), 77, 85 
 gesceap (ts), 18, 32, 42, 58, 86, 95, 
 
 97 
 
 scSap (S, i, &),2i, 22, 31, 32, 38, 39, 
 45, 46, 50, ss< 69. 76, 95. 96. 98, 
 
 lOI 
 
 sceapan, see scieppan 
 
 scear (ts, e), 62, 95, 97, 99, 106 
 
 scearseax, 74 
 
 scearu (a), 73-75, 86, 106 
 
 jceai ((s, e), 32, 38, 40, 55, 56, 58, 
 
 62, 69, 76, 95, 97 
 sceap (&), 23, 37, 39, 45, 77, 85, 93 
 sceapa {cz, ed), 21-23, 37. 44, 45, 
 
 58, 59,62, 86 
 sceapian, see sceppan 
 sceappig {m, e) and related forms, 
 
 74, 76. 77. 84. 9i 
 scefpa, see scaf(e)pa 
 sceld, 31, 39, 42, 45 
 scelfan, 45 
 scell, see sciell 
 scemol, see sceamol 
 scene, 45 
 
 scencan, 38, 86, 117 
 sceocca, see scucca 
 gescedd {d), 22, 37 
 sceofol, 103 
 scedgan (d) , 88 
 
 ^c^^^j (5), 21-23, 37, 39, 58, 59, 88, 89 
 
 scedl, 88 
 
 sceolon, see sculan 
 
 sceomfulnise , 22 
 
 sceomian (o), 56, 87 
 
 sceomol, see sceamol 
 
 sceom-u (a, o), 11, 21, 22, 37, 56, 69, 
 
 87 
 sceond, 21, 87 
 sceonian, 103 
 sceorf, see icwr/ 
 sceorian, 88, loi 
 sceort, 22, 88, 102 
 sceortian, 23, 88 
 sciotan, 88, 89, 102 
 Sceottas (o), 88 
 5cer, see jc<Er 
 sceppan (y, ce), 18, 22, 32, 39, 42, 
 
 45. 76, 77. 84, 85, 95, 98, 99, 117 
 
I30 
 
 Index. 
 
 scield ly, i, e), 106-108 
 scieldan (y,i, e), 106 
 sciell (y, e), 74-76, 95, 99 
 sciendan (y, es), 38, 45, 85, 86, 91- 
 
 94, 113, 116, 117 
 scieppan (y, ea, m, e), 18, 21, 22, 
 
 31. 32. 39. 41, 42. 45. 46. 50. 55. 
 
 74, 75- 84, 85, 88, 9S, 98, 99. T-09 
 scieran (y, e), 56, 74, 75, 76, 95-99, 
 
 loi, 106 
 scierpan (y, e) , 76 
 scierseax, 106 
 gescild, 56 
 sctnan, 35 
 sctp, see scSap 
 -scip, 22, 74 
 asclacade, 66 
 scldt, 33, 66, 
 jc5, see scedh 
 scogan, see scedgan 
 scdl, see seed/ 
 
 scomu, etc., see sceomu, etc. 
 
 sc&ra, 70 
 
 5C0i (eo), 34-36, 88, 97, 102 
 
 Scottas, see Sceottas 
 
 scr4d, 34 
 
 scila, 89 
 
 scuan, 58, 59 
 
 scucca (eo), 36, 89, 103 
 
 scufan (eo, o), 89, 90, 102 
 
 scufeltng, 70 
 
 scM^aw (eo), 19, 22, 23, 32, 34, 37, 
 
 38, 40, 43. 44, 48, 58, 59, 69. 73. 
 
 74,76,88, 89,90, 99, loi, 103, 
 
 103-106 
 sculdor, 89 
 scunian, 34, 56, 89 
 scAr, 37, 89 
 scMr/ (eo), 8g, 103 
 gesc^, see joe5/i 
 scylcen, 76 
 scyppan, see scieppan